When Coloradans voted Mark Udall into the Senate, I have to assume it was for a reason. I realize that's not necessarily a safe assumption to make; we are, after all, a notoriously bipolar electorate here in colorful Colorado. But it was consistent with our state's history of choosing moderately liberal Senators who have strong environmental backgrounds. We love our lushly forested, highly flammable land, and we vote to protect the interests of our parks and personal property. We love the Colorado River, and we're extremely dependent upon the water it contains.It's the environmentalism that secured Udall the job, apparently, although I suspect those stupid PAC ads with the dancing cutouts calling him a "Boulder liberal" had something to do with the last election. (See, contrary to our most vocal protestations, we Coloradans are secretly immensely proud of our "Boulder liberals," whether they actually exist or not. Would that the rest of the state could be so Badass Liberal as those mythical champions of progressive causes.)
Diana DeGette also owes a certain amount of her status to Colorado's passion for the planet. Featured in several recent pinko documentaries for the legislation she's introduced to protect our health and environment, she's made quite a name for herself and has a very fervent support base. It helps, I'm sure, that her constituents live in Denver and are all, obviously, on welfare.
Colorado, as a nice, lovely lavender state, sits on an environmental precipice. We could welcome the mining industry with open arms, and let them frolic free with Pannic abandon in our national parks. Or we could pass legislation requiring disclosure (at least) of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, as per the Safe Drinking Water Act. (You know, fracking! That process of extracting natural gas that makes the tap water flammable in Weld county? Yeah, we don't like that.)
Which way we go really depends on only one thing: the outcome of this year's Senatorial election. Buck will sabotage any progress we’ve made quicker than Gayle Norton would, and Bennet, well... at least he probably won't do any harm.
To be honest, I wish Michael Bennet were a little more forthcoming on his stance regarding environmental issues. As a Colorado resident, I'm sure he loves nature as much as the next guy... but he and his family sure do look uncomfortable and chilly in those windy-day campaign ads they shot last spring. One can only hope he will back Senator Udall and Representative DeGette in their efforts to protect our natural resources. I will surmise that environmentalism is not the issue with which Michael Bennet will choose to make a stand and turn against mainstream Democratic Party thinking. And I’m cool with that.
Bennet has been somewhat more vocal about his position on energy, although he still takes a pretty moderate tack. In a debate with Ken Buck a couple of days ago, he responded to charges that environmental regulation is unfairly targeting certain industries. "I look forward to working with everybody across our state to make sure we are driving this new energy economy," he said, which doesn't sound like much of anything, really, until you consider his opponent's words and positions on energy. What Bennet really said there is that those regulations aren’t going anywhere, but he’s willing to listen to people who whine about them, at least until after the election.
"We cannot allow the federal government to pick winners and losers in the energy sector and we cannot allow the state government to do the same, it's wrong," is what Ken Buck thinks of regulations.
The thought of Senator Ken Buck makes me quiver and twitch with fear, and sometimes I wake up whimpering and terrified I might be lying in a little pee puddle.
As of July 17, Ken Buck wasn't even aware that there was anything environmental in Colorado to protect. In an interview with the Durango Herald, he denied the existence of any concerns whatsoever. "I had not heard complaints about the gas industry," he told the Herald. "What kind of complaints are you talking about? I haven't heard those complaints. I haven't heard any complaints about contaminated drinking water from wells." I've heard those complaints, and I'm not even running for office. I've just been listening, instead of playing dumb.
In addition, Buck wants to eliminate the Department of Energy, which handles many aspects of conservation, and currently represents our only hope of enforcing sustainable energy. Drilling would increase, with no end in sight for our insatiable demand for non-renewable resources. Without the Department of Energy, those affected by the Rocky Flats debacle would have no hope of ever seeing any restitution, or even acknowledgement. What's more, any regulation that might keep future projects from going down that spectacularly dark road would be gone, poof, vanished in a mushroom cloud of stunningly irrational thought. We're not ready to do away with the Department of Energy.
Renewable energy, however, is simply not a priority for Ken Buck. In fact, he says, "We must continue to depend on our traditional sources of energy--coal, oil and especially natural gas. We must aggressively expand energy production in our country, including stepping up drilling and looking to nuclear power."
By "we," of course, one can safely assume that Buck is not referring to the Department of Energy. He would like the U.S. Government to look TO nuclear power, without any of those bothersome regulatory agencies looking AT it.
After all, Buck doesn't have any idea what kind of complaints we're talking about.
No comments:
Post a Comment