Printed on 6/5/17

Energy and Environment

Home / The Issues / The State of Colorado


A spokesperson for President Trump had a great observation on his decision to pull the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Accord: The President is being historical while the Left is being hysterical.
This is historical because finally a president is following through with his campaign promises, even in the face of withering criticism from the Establishment. It is historical because it charts a new course for our nation: we are standing up for our best interests instead of accepting bad deals in international agreements, just to get along. Finally, it is historical because President
Trump is not being taken in by the Left's rationale with the Paris Climate Accord.

The Paris Climate Accord was always a bad deal for our country. It put strict mandates and limitations on the U.S., while giving India and China a ten year grace period. It was also not a treaty, which is how these kind of agreements are supposed to be created. Finally, it was a bad deal because the assumptions in the Accord are way off the mark of reality.

But a fact check rarely stops the Left from becoming hysterical, and this time is no exception.

I have been carefully following the issue of energy and the environment for most of my adult life and as an elected official have found several occasions to weigh in on the many facets of this major issue of our time in history.

Here are some of those comments:


RSCC-Dr. William Gray

As a founding member of the Republican Study Committee of Colorado, and current chairman, I have organized several meetings on the topics of Global Warming and Colorado's energy resources. This brief report on one such hearing is a good example:


LUNDBERG LEGISLATIVE REPORT
April 29, 2007
On Friday, April 27th, the Republican Study Committee of Colorado held a public hearing on Global Warming. I chaired this meeting which featured Dr. William Gray, the world renowned CSU hurricane expert. He and his CSU team have developed the reputation of developing the most accurate predictions for hurricane seasons. It is Dr. Gray's professional opinion that most global warming predictions are way out of any range of accuracy and greatly exaggerated. Also presenting was Mr. Marlo Lewis of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington D.C. think tank that has been focusing on the global warming debate. After the legislative session is over I hope to put a video record of this important hearing on the internet.

I did put that talk up on the internet and it was available on my website for several years, until Google removed that section of their video streaming system.

Back to Top

Oil and Gas Commission

This report is on a significant policy change the state made for the Oil and Gas industry when Bill Ritter became governor. Back then, before horizontal drilling was developed, we were facing the prospects of oil shortages. Regardless, Ritter insisted on clamping down tighter on our major energy producers, making it more difficult for the industry, and the people of Colorado.

LUNDBERG LEGISLATIVE REPORT
March 24, 2007
HB 1341 is concerning the mission and membership of the Oil and Gas Commission. The House passed this bill by essentially a party-line vote on Friday.

This bill is, as the proponents said at the mic, an historic change in Colorado's oil and gas policy. The bill changes the composition of the commission, shifting the commission membership from those who understand the industry toward those who, at best do not know the industry or, at worst, are special interests who oppose oil and gas development. This might even open the door for environmental extremists to run our oil and gas policies.

Most telling to me in this bill is the way the purpose of the commission is being changed. This bill is stripping out the words "encourage and promote" from the statement that deals with the development of the oil and gas industry. When I tried to amend the words back into the bill I was told that removing "encourage and promote" is an essential part of the bill. As I see it, encourage and promote are being trumped by command and control.

No longer will state policy encourage and support the largest industry in the state that 70,000 jobs depend upon. With HB 1341 we are replacing encourage and support with a system of command and control.

Nor will we encourage and support the development of our tremendous natural resources of energy, which could make Colorado a world-class leader in energy production and the front-line for our nation's drive for energy independence. We are replacing a policy of encouraging and promoting with a command and control policy that will trade out the bright prospects for our state's prosperity for a dim future of economic malaise.

Back to Top

Ritter's Global Warming Plan

Governor Ritter was the "Green Governor" and after his term of office ended up with a rather high paying "green" job at CSU. I spent a great deal of time looking into the arguments for global warming and came to the conclusion that there was (and still is) a lot more political science, rather than hard science in this debate. I rarely missed an opportunity to give the rest of the story...

Ritter's Global Warming Plan

Governor Ritter's recently announced climate action plan is supposed to protect our way of life from the dire predictions that some have made about global warming, but the actual details of his initiative are more likely to head us in the opposite direction.

Ritter's entire argument is based on the yet-to-be-proven theory that carbon dioxide is the major source of temperature increases observed over the past 30 years (never mind the fact that temperatures were cooling in the previous 30 years). It also assumes that the carbon we can eliminate or lock up will be enough to offset the explosive growth (and carbon emissions) of China and other developing countries. Finally, it does not take into account the huge direct cost of his action plan, nor the consequent drag it will have on our state's economy as we develop this new game of avoiding carbon emissions at virtually any price.

Let me be clear on one important point. I do believe we should be careful stewards of our land, air and water. We should aggressively move forward with renewable energy solutions for housing, transportation, government and industry. For my own family I designed, built, and we continue to live in, a house that produces its own heat and power from the sun and wind. I am convinced that the opportunities for a healthy and prosperous future do include an increasing reliance on renewable energy.

The problem I have with the governor's plan is not that it encourages renewable energy, but that it forces our state to convert to renewable energy solutions before they are economically viable. In addition, because his plan has only skepticism for oil shale, nuclear and large hydro-electric solutions, and the governor has already been dragging his heels when it comes to the development of our traditional oil, gas and coal resources, his claim that this plan will increase our energy security rings hollow.

Ritter's plan calls for dramatic reductions in carbon emissions: 20% by 2020 and 80% by 2050. These may be laudable goals for efficiency targets, but they will become draconian vices on our state when government mandates ratchet our lives and our industries into compliance.

Colorado has incredible prospects for a very bright future. We are rich in energy resources, both traditional and renewable. Our people are aggressive and forward looking. God has blessed us with every possibility to live prosperous and healthy lives here in Colorado. We should not be misguided into heavy handed government policies that could stifle these opportunities for our children.

Representative Kevin Lundberg
November 7, 2007


Back to Top

"Carbon Fund" license plates

Even special license plates became a part of the global warming story, but I include this piece for another reason. Within this article I gave my four point analysis of the efficacy of the argument for limiting carbon dioxide. Over the several years I have engaged in this debate I return to these four points as a touchstone to the discussion.

"Carbon Fund" license plates
4/28/08

On Monday, April 28, Senate Bill 186 was debated and voted on by the Colorado House. The bill creates a specialty license plate honoring the "Carbon Fund" that is being promoted by the Governor's Energy Office. Here are the comments I gave during that debate. (I have edited this written version to make it read more clearly.)


Renewable energy cannot and will not provide all of our energy needs, but I am convinced that it will fill a growing part of our energy future. The public policy we are shaping today should recognize that fact and encourage the proper development of renewable energy technologies and resources.

This bill that establishes a "Carbon Fund" license plate, however, has some fatal flaws and I urge its rejection.

First, this is a significant change in the use of specialty license plates. Specialty plates have not been controversial political statements. We have, up to this point, only authorized non-controversial subjects on license plates. With SB 186 license plates become political bumper stickers.

I do not entirely oppose making political statements on license plates, but we must understand that with SB 186 we are now headed down the road of endorsing, in essence, political bumper stickers. I do not agree with this particular bumper sticker, but I can think of several I might like to see on Colorado license plates.

Specialty license plates could be called the ultimate sound byte. A small logo and maybe a brief phrase is all that can be put on a plate, but the plate receives considerable exposure and being an official Colorado license plate it carries an implicit endorsement by the state.

So, what are we endorsing with SB 186?

It promotes the governor's Carbon Fund. The problem is, this assumes that we need and endorse a "Carbon Fund" on the presumption that carbon is the big problem which must be conquered.

I question this wisdom.

For carbon to be the problem we must assume that:

1. Global warming is an established fact. This means that the earth is now on a certain path of unprecedented, cataclysmic proportions that will make life on this planet nearly impossible. It also assumes that this warming trend is not one of the cycles of warming and cooling which we have observed on our planet for thousands of years.

2. This global warming is due to the effect of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide comprises less than four hundredths of one percent of the atmosphere. Rather than water vapor, another greenhouse gas, which is from eight to over twenty-five times more abundant than carbon dioxide, the real problem is the tiny fraction of "green house" gasses that is carbon dioxide.

3. The carbon dioxide is anthropogenic: caused by human effort. This carbon dioxide which is proposed to be the problem that must be cured at all costs must have come from man-made sources. If we find that natural sources of carbon dioxide overwhelm the man-made sources, our limiting of anthropogenic carbon dioxide becomes meaningless.

4. We are capable of stopping global warming by restricting anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. What will really happen if we do manage to cut carbon dioxide emissions to a mere fraction of current outputs? Will it reverse any trends that may exist? Or will our best efforts prove futile?

The only thing we can really count on is that this rush to limit carbon dioxide output will severely compromise worldwide economic prosperity. Some who currently live at a subsistence level in developing nations will find their very lives in jeopardy. Basic necessities of food, refrigeration, simple medical care, transportation and housing will inevitably be less than what they could be without the strangle-hold of "carbon-lite" regulations.

As I stated earlier, I am all for developing renewable energy technologies and resources, but not on the backs of the poor and not in reaction to unproven theories.

A compassionate public policy cannot sacrifice the needs of the most needy to satisfy this political agenda. A prudent public policy does not rush to risky solutions before the facts are clearly understood.


Back to Top

Diesel Emissions Testing

This is one facet of the issue, on a very practical side. I ran a bill to eliminate diesel testing in Larimer, Weld and El Paso counties. These three counties were already in a special category for emission testing and when looking at the whole picture of EPA mandated testing, we could have easily removed the counties. However, common sense policies rarely make sense in the legislature and without a stronger political argument, few bills become law. Such was the case for HB-1133.
Legislative Report - January 25,2008


Diesel Emissions Testing

2. HB 1133 will be heard in the Transportation committee on Tuesday, January 29. This bill which I am carrying will modify the area for the diesel emission testing program. It removes Larimer, Weld and El Paso counties. Gas emissions testing has already been eliminated for these counties, but diesel vehicles are covered in a different part of the statutes and must be dealt with separately. Since only a fraction of a percent of the vehicles tested ever fail the test, the annual tests are very expensive ($80 in Loveland!) and federal law does not require the testing, it only makes sense to get rid of this nuisance regulation and the consequent $10 annual registration fee charged to all diesel vehicle owners.
Back to Top

Global Warming and Higher Electricity Costs

Speaking of a strong political argument, this next bill favored the money interests over the people, and it became law. Note my variation of the four basic points for measuring the reasons for CO2 limitations.

Legislative Report - March 23, 2008
Global Warming and Higher Electricity Costs

3. HB 1164 passed third reading on a nearly party-line vote of 43-21 (four Republicans supported the bill, no Democrats voted against the bill.) This bill directs the Public Utilities Commission to give extra preference to large solar energy systems over other ways of producing electricity. It is good to encourage the use of solar energy, but this bill assumes that the global warming issue is fully established as solid science and we need to pay for expensive renewable energy systems just because they create less carbon dioxide.

The net result will be higher electricity costs for the people of Colorado and Colorado public policy will be buying into the still unproven theory that assumes:

1. Global warming is creating catastrophic effects on our planet.
2. These catastrophic effects from global warming are created by carbon dioxide made by human activity.
3. Restricting human induced carbon dioxide can mitigate these presumed catastrophes.
4. Third world economic growth will not cancel out any effect the U. S. might create by limiting our carbon dioxide emissions.

Accommodating the notion that we must severely limit our emissions of carbon dioxide will at best hobble our economic future. A worst case scenario would have catastrophic effects itself. In any event, to base public policy decisions on the assumption that carbon dioxide emissions must be sharply curtailed is a significant lapse in sound judgment that should be strongly resisted.

Back to Top

Udall McCain Senate Hearing in Estes Park

When two U.S. senators come to town, it is a good idea to pay attention. I did, but I don't think they appreciated it.

Udall McCain Senate Hearing in Estes Park

The hearing Senator Udall and Senator McCain conducted in Estes Park concerning climate change, Rocky Mountain National Park, and our other national parks was reported by some as a proof for global warming. Having attended the hearing myself, I found that to not be the case.

Throughout the hearing it was obvious that both senators assumed anthropogenic carbon dioxide is the primary reason for any changes that occur to our local climate. That assumption, however, was never substantiated or allowed to be challenged. Senator Udall stated at the beginning of the meeting that they were not going to discuss or debate any of the merits of the global warming argument.

I can understand his desire for a focused discussion on the problems in the Park, but I find it a bit troubling to intentionally steer away from discussing such a fundamental assumption.

The panelists scheduled for the hearing also talked as if they had no serious concerns with the global warming theory as the principle cause for changes in the ecological balance in Rocky Mountain National Park. However, again, no statistical, or other compelling evidence was mentioned that demonstrated a cause and effect between global warming and the greatest immediate problem for the Park today, the bark beetle infestation. The best case they made was to cite the stress of the recent drought and some mild winters.

The local drought, that no longer is with us, and some recent mild winters that favored the growth of bark beetle populations have very distant correlations to the theories that anthropomorphic carbon dioxide is warming our planet at a dangerous rate.

If global warming is the main reason for the bark beetle outbreak today, what explanation is there for the bark beetle problems Colorado had in the 1970s? Though not quite as widespread, I remember the bark beetle devastation southwest of Denver at that time. Back then a drive down U.S. 285 showed the same tree kill as a trip along I-70 does today. How could that have been, as Colorado temperatures were, in the 1970s, at the lowest point we have seen in the past 80 years?

Additionally, to implement the course of action that global warming advocates urge, we must reduce carbon dioxide at virtually any cost. This will do little to help alleviate the bark beetle epidemic we are experiencing in Colorado today. The only direct effect would be to divert that much more of the money we could use to address the immediate ecological needs of our national parks.

In the brief moment I had with both of the senators I encouraged them to push the Federal Government to be better stewards of our forests here in Colorado. We know how to develop healthy forests that are able to withstand bark beetles, but we have instead allowed dense monocultures of mature trees to grow, which are the most vulnerable to disease and fire.

If this hearing was just another bully pulpit for the global warming advocates, it was not a step forward for the people of Colorado.

If the Federal Government ends up working harder to maintain healthy forests, then the hearing in Estes Park will have been a success. I trust that will ultimately be the case.

Kevin Lundberg
August 24, 2009


Back to Top

Copenhagen Conference

This article was published in the Fort Collins Coloradoan and the Denver Post. Like the Paris Climate Accord, the Copenhagen Conference was dripping with raw political power. Somebody had to speak out...

Copenhagen Conference

As everyone continues to jump on the "going green" bandwagon, I have been a fan of renewable energy since the 1970's and carefully followed developments in that field for the past 35 years.

Eventually, I became more than a fan. In the mid-90's I designed and built my own home to be as energy efficient and self-sufficient as possible. It is earth-bermed, super-insulated, heated by passive solar, and powered by photovoltaic panels and wind generators. In the decade since building my home, I have personally experienced what renewables can and cannot do to improve our world and our lives.

Believe me, the challenges are many and the cost is great. Yet, I remain devoted to the advancement of renewable energy.

That is why I am appalled by what has been proposed at the world climate conference in Copenhagen. The world leaders that met at this UN sponsored conference are flirting with economic and political disaster. They are basing policy decisions on the mistaken notion that man-made carbon dioxide is destroying the planet. Never mind the facts.

Carbon dioxide is actually not a pollutant. It is a minute part (less than one-twentieth of one percent) of the atmosphere and is essential for life on this planet. Water vapor is at least ten times as abundant, and by far the most pervasive "greenhouse gas." Regardless of our "carbon footprint", the planet will, in all probability, continue to go through natural cycles of warming and cooling. There is also no evidence that the computer models global warming is based on, like the ones Al Gore likes to use in his documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," are capable of meaningful and accurate predictions decades into the future.

Economic calamity awaits us if energy is rationed to a fraction of today's consumption. An incredible cost will be paid with our dearly bought freedoms when all of these mandates are enforced by not only our own government but also by self-appointed international authorities.

Reducing our "carbon footprint" through the strong arm of government will force everyone into a strict rationing program. Our standard of living will drop. It will be difficult for all, and impossible for some. By diverting our resources to this all-out effort to abandon our abundant and less expensive energy sources, we will jeopardize our way of life and threaten the very lives of those around the world who are currently living on the edge of survival.

It is also absurd to think that our faltering economy will be able to withstand the additional stress. The mandates that global warming alarmists are demanding will drive prices much higher, run whole industries out of business and destroy millions of jobs.

Promoting renewable energy and cleaner energy sources is a good thing, but only if it is a blessing to our people. Forcing us all to live on less, at a much greater expense, is not good public policy-it is the exact opposite.

We should reject the plans laid out by the UN climate conference in Copenhagen. This conference bet everything on the single, unproven theory that man-made carbon dioxide is the sole determining factor for global warming and cooling.

I agree with the thousands of scientists that have signed on to the Global Warming Petition Project, which states publicly their misgivings about current global warming theories. At the very best, man-made global warming is an unproven scientific theory that has yet to be demonstrated as true.

The talks that took place in Copenhagen are not a step forward for the people of our great nation or renewable energy technologies; they are alarmist and a grandiose attempt to grab raw political power by those who hold extreme and dangerous political opinions.

If we embrace renewable energy technologies and use them wisely, our economy will be strengthened, and we will no doubt find new opportunities. But don't just take my word for it, or Al Gore's. Study this critical issue yourself and then hold your elected representatives accountable for their actions on this significant issue.

Senator Kevin Lundberg
December 18, 2009

Back to Top

Suspending the Emission Testing

More work on the emission testing systems, this time with Weld County Senator Scott Renfroe.

Suspending the Emission Testing for Larimer and Weld Counties
by Senator Kevin Lundberg and Senator Scott Renfroe
2011

If your car was in good working order, would it make sense to have it fixed anyway? The government is trying to fix something that isn't broken by forcing costly and time-consuming vehicle emission tests on residents of Weld and Larimer county. The program is taking money from Larimer and Weld county families to fund government bureaucracies and a business monopoly.

If House Bill 1082 becomes law the vehicle emission tests required for gasoline vehicles in Weld and Larimer counties will be suspended. What that means is no fees or tests as long as our air quality continues to meet or exceed the EPA standards. The program could be resumed in future years only if the scientific, measured, evidence ever proves that we are outside of clean air standards. Today the evidence is quite clear. We are in compliance with all current clean air standards, and the multi-year trends have been consistently improving.

The normal replacement of older cars with newer vehicles continues to improve our air quality. Additionally, the oil and gas industry has invested heavily in
emission controls. Without the vehicle testing program our air quality has steadily improved in both Larimer and Weld counties. HB-1082 will allow this process to continue.

The recently imposed emission tests are not needed. They cost our citizens far too much time, trouble, and money. That is why we support suspending the tests, with HB-1082, and only allowing the tests in the future if the facts prove we are out of compliance.

In addition, the argument that including Larimer and Weld counties in the Denver Metro testing region will help area-wide compliance is a false notion. The clean air standards are not an average of all testing locations. Instead, all locations must individually pass the standards. Adding the additional areas in our counties simply increases the number of locations that must meet the standards. If any one station ever fails, the entire region is then out of compliance.

For Weld and Larimer counties the emission testing program is too much government regulation and too much government imposed costs for families just
trying to get by in these tough times. We all want clean air and clean water, but over regulation with minimal benefit for the time, trouble and cost is not good
public policy.

The commissions for both Weld and Larimer counties, as well as several town councils have passed resolutions calling for an end to the emissions testing. House Bill 1082 passed the House last month with bipartisan support despite all Northern Colorado Democrats voting against the bill. The bill now is in the Senate, which will be a tough battle. Everyone who cares about this issue needs to get involved.

On Thursday, March 24, at 1:30 PM, HB-1082 will be given a public hearing in the Senate Agriculture Committee. Anyone wishing to give the committee their comments are welcome to come and be a part of that hearing. For more information on this important issue please contact us through ColoradoSenateNews.com.

Senator Kevin Lundberg - District 15 representing most of Larimer County
Senator Scott W. Renfroe - District 13 representing most of Weld County

Back to Top

The Climate is Changing?!

Much of what I published on this issue was eight to ten years ago, but I have not given up the fight. Just last year I tackled the subject publically. In the first article I speculated as to whether CPR would follow me up on my offer to give my personal observations on local climate changes. To their credit, they did interview me, but not without making it a debate with a global warming advocate college professor. That became a two on one affair, as the moderator was very much of the opinion that global warming is a big problem, because of anthropogenic carbon dioxide.

Legislative Report - August 17, 2016
1. The Climate is Changing?!

A few days ago I was listening to Colorado Public Radio (CPR) and they were discussing climate change, which they have been doing on a daily basis for several weeks. Their unspoken presumption in every story is that global warming is a real and imminent threat, and they are always angling toward "fixing" the "problem." At the end of their story, they invited listeners to share their personal observations of climate change in Colorado. I decided to take them up on their offer.

Here is what I submitted to CPR:

"I have three observations, which tell a very different story than what is usually presented on 'climate change.'

"I have been a backyard gardener on the Front Range since I was a young child sixty years ago. Back then, in Denver we considered May 15 to be a reliable first day to put out delicate plants that could not survive a frost. Today May 15 is still considered the beginning of the frost free growing season. If the climate has been significantly warming the frost free date would be getting earlier. Serious gardeners (and farmers) know better.

"Secondly, the date winter wheat is ripe for harvest in Northern Colorado has not changed in my lifetime. My father was a custom harvester from 1959 to 1981. I joined him in the harvest from about 1965 to 1978. Back then the winter wheat was almost always ready for harvest in Northern Colorado during the last two weeks of July (sometimes, in a dry year, a little earlier). For the past 20 years I have lived on a farm outside of Berthoud, and I have noticed that the wheat fields are still ready for harvest during the same weeks in July as they were 50 years ago. Again, if we had been seeing any significant change in the climate here in Colorado, winter wheat--which is planted in the previous fall, so it does not ripen according to its planting date, but is completely dependent on when the spring season begins--should be ready for harvest at an earlier date than the pattern of 50 years ago.

"Finally, in 1979 I was a part of a team of five young men who backpacked along the entire Continental Divide in Colorado (about 700 miles of trails). We spent 80 days living with the land in the heart of the Colorado Rockies. Whenever we can, we are back on those very trails we first lived on 37 years ago. The plants, the weather, the snowpack, and the available water points have not changed. The only big differences on the trails I have observed over these decades are the people. There are more people on the roads and more crowds in the most accessible campsites. There are fewer people in the back country areas, fewer backpackers over all, and more extreme sport enthusiasts. The ecosystems in the Colorado mountains have not changed, but the people and their patterns have changed a great deal.

"I submit that that is like much of the climate change discussion. The climate is not changing any more than it has always been changing through the centuries, but what people think about those changes in the climate has been undergoing a radical transformation, which is not based on real world facts as much as it is based on perceptions and far too often spin by those who report on climate change."

It will be interesting to see if they give my report any attention at all.
Back to Top

Hickenlooper's Executive Order

Please note in this final article on environmental issues that I continue to run with the basic four points on the CO2 argument.

Legislative Report - August 30, 2016
1. Hickenlooper's Executive Order

It has been widely publicized that Governor Hickenlooper is floating the idea of issuing an executive order to force power plants to reduce their carbon emissions by 25% by 2025 and 35% by 2030. Never mind the fact that executive orders are only authorized to enforce Colorado law. In this case, the Governor is perilously close to making up the law.

For now, let's focus on the basic rationale for this executive order, which is limiting carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
In the political rush to control "global warming," carbon dioxide has become public enemy number one. I addressed this issue in the Colorado House way back in April of 2008. Here is essentially what I said at that time. Very little has changed and it is still true today:

For carbon dioxide emissions to be the big problem that must be severely cut, we must first assume that:

1. Planet killing global warming is an established fact. This means that the earth is now on a certain path of unprecedented, cataclysmic proportions that will make life on this planet nearly impossible. It assumes that this warming trend is unique to our time, and just not one of the cycles of warming and cooling which we have observed on our planet for thousands of years.

2. This global warming is primarily due to the effect of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide comprises about four hundredths of one percent of the atmosphere (4 parts are CO2 and 9996 parts are other gasses). Rather than water vapor, another greenhouse gas, which is from eight to over twenty-five times more abundant than carbon dioxide, the real problem is the tiny fraction of "greenhouse" gasses that is carbon dioxide.

3. The carbon dioxide is anthropogenic: caused by human effort. This carbon dioxide, which is proposed to be the problem that must be cured at all costs, must have come from man-made sources. If we find that natural sources of carbon dioxide overwhelm the man-made sources, our limiting of anthropogenic carbon dioxide becomes meaningless.

4. We are capable of stopping this global warming catastrophe by restricting anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. What will really happen if we do manage to cut carbon dioxide emissions to a mere fraction of current outputs? Will it reverse any trends that may exist? Or will our best efforts prove futile?

The only thing we can really count on is that this rush to limit carbon dioxide output has already severely compromised worldwide economic prosperity. At this point (2016) a conservative estimate of what has been earmarked to limit the planet's "carbon footprint" certainly amounts to trillions of dollars.

These are resources that could be more directly aimed at addressing the immediate needs of billions of people. Some who currently live at a subsistence level in developing nations find their very lives in jeopardy. Because of this significant "investment" in restricting CO2, basic necessities of food, refrigeration, simple medical care, transportation and housing are being compromised. If the economic engines around the globe had a more singular focus on increasing prosperity, rather than meeting the artificially established goal of choking off the productivity that is associated with CO2, more people could live longer, healthier, and more productive lives.

Having designed and built my own home, which is powered by solar and wind, no one should question my support for renewable energy technologies and resources, but not on the backs of the poor and not in a knee-jerk reaction to political speculation.

A compassionate public policy cannot sacrifice the needs of the most needy to satisfy any political agenda. A prudent public policy does not rush to risky solutions before the facts and consequences are clearly understood.

Back to Top

Conclusion

As an independent minded citizen I am not that persuaded by opinions just because other people have bought the argument. I want to see the facts and I want the facts to line up with all the other relevant facts. Unfortunately that is not the case for many others, including too many trained scientists. Consequently, this battle will continue on.

At a minimum I hope we will not sell our inheritance in this great land for a bowl of porridge that is little more than a lot of political rhetoric.


Back to Top

< Back to The State of Colorado

"2011 Taxpayer Champion"
- Colorado Union of Taxpayers