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%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
June 01, 2017 02:11 PM UTC

Syria, Nicaragua, the United States of America

  • 87 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

UPDATE: Rep. Diana DeGette of Denver blasts the decision:

“Pulling out of the Paris Agreement won’t happen overnight, but this announcement’s impact will be immediate: It signals that the United States cannot be counted on to stick to its promises and is prepared to cede leadership in yet another area that is crucial to our future. After ridiculing international trade agreements, failing to stand up firmly for NATO’s Article 5 commitments and treating our traditional alliances with scorn, the president evidently is willing to renege on an accord to which all countries but Syria and Nicaragua have agreed. Why is he looking to alienate the United States? ‘America First’ is turning into ‘America Alone.’

“This step defies scientific consensus about the effects of climate change. It will imperil future generations. And it will empower other countries that honor the Paris Agreement, leading them to create opportunities for innovation and a surging clean energy sector while our country is left in the dust.”

Colorado’s U.S. Senators disagree via Denver7:

Sen. Michael Bennet (D)

“The President made a catastrophic mistake by putting a misguided campaign promise before the needs of our economy and the credibility of American diplomacy. Before this decision, the United States was on track to achieve energy independence, reduce its carbon footprint, and create good-paying jobs in rural communities—with Colorado leading the way. Withdrawing from the Paris Agreement attempts to undercut the progress we have made.

“In Colorado, we will continue working to meet the carbon emissions targets set in the Clean Power Plan. The administration should reverse this shortsighted decision and work to protect our planet, economy, and national security.”

Sen. Cory Gardner (R)

“The last Administration never submitted the Paris Climate Agreement to Congress and acted unilaterally. When Congress is bypassed, a president’s orders can be reversed by a future presidential action. The American people deserve to have a say in our energy future and Congress is the appropriate place to debate these important issues. I will continue to work with my colleagues to grow the economy, create jobs, and protect the environment for future generations of Coloradans.”

—–

Take that, world!

President Trump announced today that the United States would withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement originally finalized in 2015. As the Washington Post reports:

President Trump announced Thursday afternoon that he is withdrawing the United States from the landmark Paris climate agreement, a move that honors a campaign promise but risks rupturing global alliances and disappointing both environmentalists and corporate titans.

But Trump said he would seek to negotiate a new climate deal that is, in his view, “fair” to America’s interests…

…The U.S. exit from the climate pact could raise doubts about the commitment of the world’s largest economy to curbing global warming and make it more difficult to hold other nations to their environmental commitments.

All but two countries — Nicaragua and Syria — signed onto the 2015 accord, which was a signature diplomatic achievement for President Barack Obama. [Pols emphasis]

Trump was preparing to make his decision official in remarks from the Rose Garden at the White House. The atmosphere was celebratory, with a military band performing “Summertime” and other jazz hits as Cabinet members, White House staffers, conservative activists and other Trump supporters took their seats in the garden under the warm sun.

As David A. Andelman writes for CNN, Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris agreement has repercussions well beyond Climate Change:

“America First” is becoming increasingly America alone. Somehow, Donald Trump has managed, with a single, desperate and ill-conceived stroke, to sever the United States from the rest of the world.

I was astonished 18 months ago to witness at the Le Bourget conference center outside Paris the extraordinary spectacle of nearly 200 countries actually agreeing on one central aspect of life on our planet — the need to control the pollutants that are wreaking havoc on our decaying atmosphere and our climate.

Suddenly, now, it’s the United States against everyone else on Earth.

Syria. Nicaragua. The United States of America.

And everybody else.

Tweet
Share

Comments

87 thoughts on “Syria, Nicaragua, the United States of America”

  1. The Flat Earth Society and the Luddites in the GOP welcome this as a prelude to a New Era of the Dark Ages.  Because ignorance is the new cool.

  2. Obama enters into a treaty without submitting it to the Senate for approval as a treaty.  Trump unilaterally withdraws from what Obama unilaterally agreed to.

    China is not required to cut back emissions.  In fact it is allowed to grow them.  India only has to cut anything after it is paid off by funds 30% of which are to come from the US.

    If you have been to China or India you know they are much dirtier and polluted than the US.

    The agreement made no sense except that some egotistical globalists can pretend that they are doing something about something with other people's money.

    1. So because you and the Buffoon-in-Chief are so butt-hurt about this, you're willing to cut off your nose (and everyone else's) to spite your face.  Smart move, Gerbils

       

    2. Well, Gerbils, looks like you might not be speaking for most Republicans afterall:

      Distraught Democrats, resistant Republicans and just about everyone else still not ready to accept Donald Trump as their president have tried to pacify themselves with two thoughts – that he isn’t capable of making any real impact, and that the moderates in the White House will sway him.

      Withdrawing from the Paris Agreement is the latest, and biggest, smack of reality: they are wrong.

      It’s not Republican. It’s not conservative. It’s not right-wing. But it is consistent—again diving deep into the nationalism that he campaigned on last year and has been driving for the last 133 days.

      “Isolating America behind a wall, if you will—not just in terms of our southern borders, but globally,” is how Michael Steele, the former Republican National Committee chairman, summed it up.

    3. You have no idea what you're talking about. If China isn't committed to cutting emissions why are they closing coal mines? Why are they becoming the leader in the solar industry and why are they building wind farms? You simply don't have the facts behind your assertions.

      Was the Paris accord perfect? Of course not, but we were poised to make a profit on what was going to be done. Not now.

      As Noam Chomsky said in a recent interview, the Republican Party has become the most dangerous organization on the planet for the simple reason it refuses, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, to acknowledge, let alone do anything about, the existential threat to human life that climate change represents. One can criticize Professor Chomsky for many things that he has said and written over his long career but just think about what he said. Put another way, all of us would do whatever it would take to preserve our own lives or the lives of family and friends if they were threatened by disease or any form of danger. So why wouldn't we do whatever it takes to defeat a threat to the existence to every human being on the planet.

      If one of us was a pedestrian at a stop light and the person next to us began walking into the path of an on coming car, we would grab the stranger by the arm and pull them back to safety because we could see for certain an oncoming car would hit them. In that scenario, Mr. Trump and the Republican Party would let the car hit the pedestrian because of course the car isn't there, even though everyone else within eye shot can see it is. 

      1. Then Pear et-all would try to trick the victim out of their insurance settlement all the while telling the victim that they need to be more careful.

    5. Obama entered into the treaty because it was the right thing to do.

      The Republican Senate could have taken resolution vote to support or disavow the treaty but didn't.  I would love to see Gardner go on record opposing the Paris Agreement.  His comment was as mealy mouthed by Andrews.

  3. Democrats begin to align against the American worker and the American economy once again. Old Europe and continuously and the never ending developing countries, who never develop, lament losing access to American taxpayers bank accounts. Joe Biden accurately stated that the Democratic Party failed to connect with middle American values. Apparently Joe don't know.

    1. I may be wrong but I presume you believe the 1964 report by the Surgeon General linking cancer to tobacco was a hoax trumped up by people who hate tobacco companies. Right?

      By the way, as Michael Bowman has documented a thousand times on this site for you and all of us, coal isn't coming back. It was dead before Trump announced for president because another fossil fuel known as natural gas costs far less and emits about 50% of the emissions that coal does.

      Since you don't believe climate change is a problem please document your assertion with scientific evidence. Once you do that, we can have a serious discussion.

    2. Ah yes!  The unemployed, white, coal miner with a grievance example who thinks he is entitled to a good paying job in his home town while ignoring that the mills and mines around him are shut down and gone forever like the  slide rule factories.  If it was an unemployed person of color in an urban area who had been let go of a retail store that went to online sales only, well then Pear would speak out of the other side of his mouth and say that the unemployed inner city person didn't have a job because they were lazy.  You can't make up what hypocritical pieces of shit Pear and his Republican propaganda cohorts are regarding the plight of the unemployed.  They are not real people to Pear.  They are pawns on a Chess board to be manipulated at will for his power crazed fantasies.

      1. Typical Liberal Democrat. "Gee I'm sorry your factory closed and you are out of a job, but since my income stream isn't impacted, I'll wear this colorful ribbon to show I have empathy for the unemployed. Good luck with that government jobs program, although it may only pay half of what you were making before. And tell your family thanks for saving the planet. Oh, please donate to the Hillary 2020 campaign. Remember Democrats are for the Everyman."

        1. "Under Mr. Obama’s supposedly job-killing regulations, more than 11.3 million jobs were created, compared with two million-plus under Mr. Bush’s antiregulatory regime."

          https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/opinion/trump-paris-climate-change-agreement.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-top-region&region=opinion-c-col-top-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-top-region&_r=0 

          As always, the PeePee Hooker is right on point with reality.

        2. And how would you help the coal miner that has worked his ass off for years and has black lung, while his employer is giving him the short shrift on his medical care?

          1. If you think sex workers "sell their bodies," but coal miners do not, your view of labor is clouded by your moralistic view of sexuality.

          2. This is how our Commerce Secretary dealt with such unpleasantries like health care and pensions while he was in the private sector.  Now he's busy draining the swamp.  Amirite, Pear?

            Ross made his money collecting “distressed assets”—failing steel and textile mills in the Midwest and South, and coal mines in Appalachia. Dubbed the “the King of Bankruptcy,” Ross cut jobs, wages, pensions, and health benefits at the companies he acquired, and reaped the profits. In the early 2000s, Ross’s foray into the steel industry netted him a $267 million personal windfall, but stripped health-care benefits from more than 150,000 retired steelworkers. Then he moved on to the coal industry, at one point controlling as much as $1.2 billion in coal assets through his company, the International Coal Group.

        3. Under your logic we would all be driving horse and buggies because of course we couldn't allow Henry Ford and other car makers to displace the carriage makers and horse whip makers. In your world progress, economic and scientific, would come to a dead standstill. Why do you take such silly positions? Why are you afraid of change? The government didn't close the coal mines. Natural gas did. The economy has moved on.

          By the way, can you cite scientific evidence that climate change isn't true. Unfounded opinion isn't a substitute for research.

          1. I find nothing in the Bible to support the proposition that E= MC2.  

            But from an abundance of caution, I stay miles away from ground zero at nuclear test sites anyway.

          2. Thank God there is climate change. Otherwise this would be a ball of ice. With your superior brain capacity you think the last 80 years is reflective of future climate change. When in fact it is not a significant data point to make any decisions or projections on future climate progress. When you can predict the number of volcanoes that will erupt get back with me. One volcano will erase any amount of so called CO2 reductions. But that's not really your purpose. Your purpose is to fall in line with the group think of the climate religion. The climate may change, and if it does you better hope it is warmer. Try growing food in freezing temperatures. 

            2. But that's not really your purpose. Your purpose is to fall in line with the group think of the climate religion.

              Paris climate deal exit 'deeply troubling' to Catholic leaders

              "Catholic teaching insists that climate change is a grave moral issue that threatens our commitments: to protect human life, health, dignity, and security; to exercise a preferential option for the poor; to promote the common good of which the climate is part; to live in solidarity with future generations; to realize peace; and to care for God’s good gift of creation."

        4. What a hilarious response plying your stupid stereotypes and prejudices in a desperate attempt to make the issue about anything other than your blatant hypocrisy.  You never denied that you hate the unemployed person of color but lionize the unemployed white person.  Not one word of protest about what a racist piece of shit you are.

          Whatever happened to free market capitalism and let the invisible hand of the market decide the fate of industries?  Republicans today believe not in free markets but oligarchies that decide which industries survive based on the greed of the wealthiest.  Republicans are still paying subsidies to fossil fuel companies after all these years but buy their steel from China.

          Democrats have supported and will support research and development of new technologies that deal with the issues of our time.  Democrats are not interested building more wagon wheels or TV antennas.  They are focused on solutions that preserve and protect our planet and people.  It is Republicans who are intent on getting rid of community college training and treatment centers for addictions that are prevalent in rural areas as well as urban.  Republicans destroy.  Democrats build.  The economy is already under performing and it will get worse as the world turns to other sources for entertainment and commerce.  There will be no economic  utopia now that Republicans are intent on riding the dead horse of fossil fuel into the sunset.

          1. Tell the wind industry you want them to complete in the free market. Without Federal subsidies they would close up. Just as happen about 4 years ago.

            I expect your pejoratives, it what the Pols exist on. 

                3. PP – I get particular pleasure out of linking to Hillary (the one who won the popular vote by 3 million) articles for you and to marijuana (the industry our state constitution protects via a democratic vote of our citizens) websites for our resident basement dweller.  🙂

                2. Completely agree. No more "ad valorem' tax credits, no more "unconventional fuel" rebates, no more patrolling the Strait of Hormuz by the U.S. Navy…..

                  Sounds good….

                3. Why don't you float that idea at the next caucus meeting PP and see if you're still around for cookies and coffee when it's over? 

                4. The most efficient form of energy is that not unnecessarily consumed.  Energy efficiency reigns supreme.  That's why your beloved Taxafornia has doubled it's GDP over the past decade while keeping its electrical demand flat.  A grand conservative ideal – "waste not, want not".  Except if it's someone else's idea….then it's bad.   Otherwise, distributed energy is the best method of generation – but that flies in the face of central power aka control by a relatively small handful of players. 

            3. What, you don't like being called a racist piece of shit?   In all fairness, I think your ideology has blinded your judgment– those glaciers in Greenland aren't melting just because Hillary got 3 million more votes than trump.  But I don't think you're a racist.  We do get a tad carried away here.  We could use a few more good souls like notaskinnycook to bind the best of our impulses together.

              1. Voyageur – You forget that he called me a 'Liberal Democrat'.  Do you know how shattered I am that he used such a hurtful pejorative to describe the totality of my personality.

                  1. I might be foul mouthed in the tradition of Richard Pyor but at least I'm not mealy mouthed like the idiot who started this thread by accusing liberals of aligning against the American (white) worker.  He deserves every abuse and insult heaped on him for his unnecessary, deliberate and derogatory comment that had no factual accuracy and did nothing to examine the issue of protecting our planet and building our economy.  And then he/she/bot goes into grievance mode when called out on how stupid his/her/its post was.

                    You also notice that he never once affirmed that he was concerned about income fairness for all.  Could have told us that he was concerned about helping minorities climb out of the hole of centuries of having their work stolen from them with no reparations.  He didn't do it because his only purpose commenting on this site is to spew perjoratives towards liberals and Democrats.  He is no different in his heart than the murderer in Portland whose hatred for the 'others' turned to tragedy.  If he wants to engage in a discussion of the complexities of saving our environment while building new industries like America did with software than I would be willing to engage in polite conversation but if his only intention is to propagate his personal hatred towards "Liberal Democrats" then I don't have a problem with saying frank things about his low class comments.

                    1. Do you really think the only test of the civility standard is whether YOU have a problem?

            4. Another post another lie.  Wind farms are competitive today with heavily subsidized fossil fuels.

              You never explained why you have a big tear for the unemployed white but unbridled animus for the person of color who is looking for work.  Just admit it already.  Race is the sole criteria for whether you are concerned about a person's job status.  The unemployed white coal miner has justified grievances and we have to do everything possible including killing our planet so they can have a good paying job but the unemployed person of color deserves to have all of our societal safety nets ripped away from them.  That is pretty much my definition of a racist piece of shit. 

              1. Nailed it, GG.  

                BTW, solar is at grid Pear-ity in 80% of the global markets today.  The problem isn't the availability of technology to deliver clean, abundant electrons – it's manipulated markets and regulatory structures that keep them out.  

                This isn't celebrating and advancing Yankee ingenuity (which you'd think Pear would be all over like stink on Trump) – it's about keeping new players out of a rigged marketplace (keeping the stinky Trumps rich).

                1. I hated it when Bush used the troops for his photo-ops Michael (the plastic chicken) and I get totally torqued when I see Trump use the mine workers the same way because you and I both know that Trump could care less about their lives.  They could have lined ferns up behind Trump and he would have had the same feelings for them.  Trump's budget is a very clear picture of how Trump intends to knife the coal miners in the back so he can shower more gifts on the rich.  This is a straight up con.  We can grow our economy, protect the planet and have good relationships with the rest of the world.  Unfortunately it is going to be after the grifter in the White House is gone.

                  1. I'm going to use the analogy of TwoScoops™ two sets of books in his private business – it's instructive as to how the very core of that man operates.  His public set of books is the rhetoric about #AmericaFirst, #MAGA aimed at his low information supporters who don't do the heavy lifting of connecting those dots to his other set of books: what he's actually doing.  All those Carrier employees he 'saved'? Gone this summer.  Nobody loves a cleaner environment than him? Guts the EPA.  Kicking 20+ million off of health insurance so he can give his billionaire buddies another tax break? Yapping about Barron's 'trauma' over KathyLee's picture while he proposes to gut SNAP – and fails even a mention of the 90+ Afghani's that were killed by a bomb yesterday, including 10 Americans?  

                    If there is a hell, there is a very special place for souls like his.  A place where he only gets one scoop – and it melts before he can eat it.

        5. Trump proclaiming he'll make coal great again is the equivalent of saying we'll shut down Netflix to bring back Blockbuster jobs. 

          1. Hey PP: these guys are scrolling your nerd bigly and hugely on the energy issue. If you're not responding, I guess that's because you have no response.

            Slogan: to conserve is conservative. 

  4. Well, shill boy, when sea levels rise six feet and Manhattan looks like Venice, lets see how much those coal industry campaign contributions are worth. Donald Trump, Daniel Ortega and Bashir Assad against the world.  My money is on the world.

     

    1. Agreed, V. There isn't anything Trump can destroy before his impeachment that we can't fix. The Triglodytes parading around as a political party are on both the wrong side of history and the American ideals that got us this far. Prosperity Jesus just doesn't cut it.

      I got to hold the latest addition to our family, my grandson, for the first time yesterday. There's nothing like an 8 pound  baby boy to remind us what's worth fighting for. 

  6. Michael Grunwald has a great insight into the motives of our narcissistic, megalomaniacal, intellectual flyweight Buffoon-in-Chief:

    Trump’s abrupt withdrawal from this carefully crafted multilateral compromise was a diplomatic and political slap: it was about extending a middle finger to the world, while reminding his base that he shares its resentments of fancy-pants elites and smarty-pants scientists and tree-hugging squishes who look down on real Americans who drill for oil and dig for coal. He was thrusting the United States into the role of global renegade, rejecting not only the scientific consensus about climate but the international consensus for action, joining only Syria and Nicaragua (which wanted an even greener deal) in refusing to help the community of nations address a planetary problem. Congress doesn’t seem willing to pay for Trump’s border wall—and Mexico certainly isn’t—so rejecting the Paris deal was an easier way to express his Fortress America themes without having to pass legislation.

    it’s important not to exaggerate the substantive impact of Trump’s decision to bail on Paris, which will officially remove the United States from the agreement in late 2020 at the earliest. It’s a signal that the U.S. government no longer cares about the climate, but that’s been abundantly clear ever since Trump won the election and appointed an energetic fossil-fuel advocate named Scott Pruitt to run the EPA. Leaving Paris won’t reverse the rapid decline of coal or the boom of cleaner energy in America, because the economics of coal have fallen apart while the cost of wind and solar have plummeted, and it won’t stop that same trend in China, India and the rest of the world. 

    Of course, trolling the world is the essence of Trump’s America First political brand, and Thursday’s announcement reinforced his persona as an unapologetic rebel who won’t let foreigners try to tell America what to do, even when major corporations, his Secretary of State, and his daughter Ivanka want him to do it. He was also leaning into his political identity as Barack Obama’s photographic negative, dismantling Obama’s progressive legacy, kicking sand in the wimpy cosmopolitan faces of Obama’s froufrou citizen-of-the-world pals.

    This is Trump's FU note to his "enemies".  There is no price too high for others to pay in order to satisfy his unlimited neediness and fragile ego.

    1. Great piece!  As he was quoted once, " I look at myself as a six-year old and as a businessman and I see no difference" We have a man-child running 'Merika, enabled by a party of old white guys parading as Freedumb lovers.  Heavy emphasis on 'enablers'. The mid-terms will be telling. 

    1. There are some valid points in that article, ajb.

      A reluctant, trolling USA in the Paris accord could be worse than no USA at all.

      In other news, California, at least,is poised to live up to its own green standards which are on a par with the Chinese standards. This should make them an economic powerhouse going forward – they already have a better economy than most of the US, primarily because of the economic paybacks from renewables.

      Here's Governor Jerry Brown interviewing with Ari Melber on the Maddow show:

       

      And 61 US Mayors and governors of 3 states so far (CA, NY, and WA) agreed to form a coalition to lead on climate, since our President refuses to do so. Will CO join this coalition? We already have tougher clean energy and methane standards than most of the US – the Atty Gen won’t like it, but who cares? Hick?

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/cities-states-climate-leaders-trump-paris_us_593037a9e4b0e9a77a536fa9?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

        1. Hick is still weasel-wording his commitment to climate change, it seems to me. Colorado's commitment to the Clean Power Plan targets a 36% decrease in power plant emissions, plus we have a Renewable Energy Standard of 30%, which I think is the highest in the nation. So Colorado is leading, and these should be a net positive for the air.

          They do cost money to implement, which is why our Attorney General , the wicked witch of oil and gas, is against implementing the Clean Power Plan. and sued the Obama administration for proposing it.

          Hickenlooper has said that he plans to continue with Colorado's own clean-air policies.

          So Colorado's joining the Climate Alliance states would be pretty much symbolic, and not require a big change in direction. Yet, Colorado is leadiing. So we should bloody well lead. Colorado's participation in those Climate Alliance meetings would show our real world experience with taming stinky power plants, leaky methane vents, and cranky Koch-sucking Attorneys General.

          So someone who knows more about the specific climate goals in the Paris agreement vs Colorado's plan, feel free to talk me down on this. Is there ground to be gained by allying with other states?

          I think we need to keep pushing Hickenlooper on not being so freaking accommodating to the oil and gas industry. Enforce setbacks, don't allow around schools, cap the methane, fund inspectors, fine violators. These would all keep the air cleaner and lead others in doing likewise.

          1. There are, MJ, some legal and practical limits to a state's ability to conduct an independent foreign policy.   Certain powers in the international arena, for instance, are strictly reserved for the Boulder City Councilsmiley

            1. I'm not suggesting that Colorado have a foreign policy all by itself, and that would be a misinterpretation of my post. The scope of this is pretty narrow and pretty domestic, having to do with how utilities and buildings function in Colorado.

              I'm suggesting that Colorado should join with the other Climate Alliance states (Washington, New York, California, Oregon, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Rhode Island, Hawaii) and now 174 munipalities, including 6 in Colorado,  to uphold the Paris Agreement.

              As I explained above, I understand that Colorado is substantially complying with the Paris Climate Accord right now, through its implementation of the Clean Energy Plan and the Renewable Energy Standard.

              I would just like Colorado to become a formal part of this alliance. Hick probably doesn't want to be seen as "caving to environmentalists", since he's already facing rebellion from his own AG Coffman.

              Joining the Climate Alliance would not necessarily obligate us to do more than we're doing now, would facilitate communication amongst states and municipalities committed to reducing carbon emissions, and hopefully reduce carbon, and mitigate climate change.

              So it's worth doing. We'll leave the global foreign policy to Cory Gardner.

              1. Nearly every state has a renewable standard today (sans the Bible Belt). Colorados, at 30% and once the highest in the nation, is now #2 behind Pear's beloved Taxafornia (50% by 2030).  Many of the states have a 25% by 2025 'goal' thanks to the work we did at the state level a decade ago.  

                Xcel's recent commitments to wind are going to put the state well-ahead of it's mandate deadline; thanks to the Clean Air Clean Jobs legislation passed under Ritter and the Democratically-controlled House and Senate, we now have a large fleet of flexible, natural gas generators that can accommodate more and more renewables.  Hitting a 50% overall goal is well within our sights.  

                Hell, even after the apocalyptic predictions from Tri-State and their bff, the Independence Institute, after the passage of SB-252, they're increasing their wind capacity – while meeting the mandates of SB13-252 well-ahead of schedule. 

                It's worth noting that even though our basement-dwelling dumbass thinks the Democrats have ruined rural Colorado, the secessionists can thank the Democrats for these standards (put in place over the end-times rhetoric of the House and Senate Republicans) that have put something to the tune of $6 billion in tax base and jobs in those rural counties.  He's much rather we rolled over and let Tri-State hang a multi-billion coal noose around rural Colorado's neck.

                We upped our standards, Moddy.  Up yours. 

                 

                1. Thanks for the info, Michael. I contacted Hick's office to ask him to sign onto the Climate Alliance with the other 9 states. I'll be interested in his answer.

                  If this United States Climate Alliance develops any binding provisions, it would have to be approved by Congress. With all of the current posturing, that won't happen until closer to 2018. But if it's just, to quote Kontorovich in the Washington Post, " a non-binding commitment to meet non-binding goals set by a non-binding treaty",  then there is no reason why Hick shouldn't add Colorado to this informal group of states.

                  By the way, that XCeL wind farm project and transmission line is pretty exciting. We won’t get many jobs out of it in my neck of the woods, although Lincoln County will. But it seems like it will eventually replace some of the dirty coal power that we’re stuck with here.

              2. You know, MJ, you don't have to take everything, including enumerated powers of the Boulder City Council to run foreign policy,  at face value. Once in a while, you can just laughwink

    2. AJB

      I read the article.  It suggests that the Agreement is so loose and illusory that there would be no effect on the US of staying in it.  If that is true, it seems like it is no big deal that we got out.

      The suggestion is that the agreement was hugely popular.  If that was true, Obama would have submitted it as a treaty and Trump or anyone else who came along would have had a more difficult time changing course.  My sense is it was not hugely popular and would not have been approved in the Senate.

      Ruling as a dictator by executive order has its limitations, one of which is the longevity of "accomplishments".

      2. AC, 

        The goals are voluntary, as are plans for achieving them. The effect on the U.S. comes from us sticking to our goals, which were largely contained in the Clean Power Plan. 

        Now, with the U.S. out, the rest of the world can act without US consent, so don't be surprised if US oil and gas imports/exports are subject to a carbon tax. This is precisely why big oil and big coal wanted to stay in it – to have a seat and the table and a thumb on the scale. No longer.

        And your middle paragraph is precious. 

         

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

186 readers online now

Newsletter

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