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
November 14, 2014 12:07 PM UTC

Election Night Lesson: Conservation Universal Value in Colorado

  • 40 Comments
  • by: ConservationColorado

[Promoted by Colorado Pols]

 

From our Executive Director Pete Maysmith: 

 

Have you ever seen a politician stand up and say, “I have an inconsistent voting record, get all kinds of funding from special interest groups and don’t truly have my constituents’ best interests at heart”?

 

Of course not; part of politics is spin.

We certainly learned a great deal about spin this fall. The lesson from Colorado’s statewide midterm elections?  This state cares about the environment and will not tolerate candidates who openly endanger it.

In the governor’s race, Bob Beauprez learned the hard way that being openly anti-environment will not go well in Colorado.  Publicly endorsing public land seizure, promising to repeal renewable energy standards and supporting costly water diversion projects, Beauprez was clearly a threat to some of Colorado’s most dearly held priorities.  These issues alone may not have cost him the election, but they were certainly a factor. Especially considering the fact that his opponent, incumbent Gov. Hickenlooper, faced strong headwinds after some unpopular decisions while in office.  Despite these setbacks, Hickenlooper beat Beauprez by over 3%.  It was not a photo finish but a clear, unequivocal victory.

 

On the other hand, Cory Gardner nabbed his Senate seat in no small part because of an effort to appear pro-environment.  Appearing in a now-infamous ad in front of a wind farm, he declared himself “a new kind of Republican” and labeled himself a pioneer of Colorado’s green energy economy.  His voting record would suggest otherwise (Gardner’s time in the House earned him a 9% lifetime score from the League of Conservation Voters), but his smoke and mirror tricks ultimately paid off.  

 

The optimistic environmentalist would hope that Senator-elect Gardner is in fact committed to keeping Colorado clean, and we share that hope.  But based on his voting record, consistent support of the Keystone XL pipeline, and tendency to minimize the impact of environmental concerns, we’re skeptical.  At the very least, we are certain we’ll miss our friend Mark Udall, who was a consistent champion for wilderness and the environment for Colorado in the US Senate.  

 

Tuesday, November 4th involved both successes and disappointments for the environmental community.  We were comforted by the knowledge that the voters refused to support candidates who openly jeopardize the environment, and without that factor, things could have gone much worse.  

 

A clear illustration of this lesson took place in the sprawling Central Colorado mountains  Senate District 5.  Our endorsed candidate Kerry Donovan faced League of Conservation Voters’ Dirty Dozen member Don Suppes.  Let’s be clear: of all the state legislative candidates in the country, LCV identified Suppes as one of 12 who stood out as a threat to the environment.  Conservation Colorado went all-in to support Donovan, knocking doors, sending mailers, and social media campaigns, and she emerged victorious.  Our efforts demonstrated that when Coloradans know the environment is in the crosshairs, they turn out to elect those who defend it.  

 

 

The Colorado Senate was bittersweet; despite losing our pro-conservation majority, Donovan is joined by Mike Merrifield and Leroy Garcia, two key state Senate seats lost in the 2013 recall elections.  We are grateful for these champions as we face a Senate tilted against us.  

 

We did succeed in retaining our conservation majority in the House, however, which was a hard-fought accomplishment.  We are very excited to work with our up-and-coming Representative-elects Jessie Danielson, Jeni Arndt and our own Faith Winter!

 

Another important lesson from this election is that turnout matters.  Experience has taught us that when large amounts of people vote, the environment wins, which is thanks to a group known as the Rising American Electorate – young people, minorities, and single women. For example, in House District 59, conservation champ Mike McLachlan won in 2012 by over 900 votes when more than 42,000 people voted. This year, only 34,000 people voted, and McLachlan appears to have lost by less than 200 votes.  Making sure all voices are heard is a must for the environment.  

 

As we move forward from our mixed election night, we hope that all of our leaders recognize that regardless of political spin, conservation is a universal value in Colorado.

 

To learn more about Conservation Colorado’s 2014 election efforts check out our 2014 Elections Report and Memo.

 
Tweet
Share

Comments

40 thoughts on “Election Night Lesson: Conservation Universal Value in Colorado”

  2. The tar sands crude is extremely corrosive and eats though pipelines. My son works in a refinery where they get tar sands crude by tanker. He says it corrodes everything it touches. It shouldn't be mined at all, much less transported. 

    1. D, they know the R's are going to pass it in January, so why not try to help out a friend.  The Dems up for election in 2016, I am looking at you Mikey, will cave anyway because of the politics of it.

  4. It looks like we are going to continue to press for local control of the fracking process…now, that Frackenlooper has been returned to his oily office…If there was a good reason to allow the unfettered and unregulated drilling and fracking, maybe there would be reason to compromise…but, BUT…these Koch boys and the other Big oil guys want to ship OUR oil and gas overseas, they get the profits and we get the shaft of polluted water, air and land…FUCK you AC and the gop/bagger horse you rode in on…

          1. And what of the property rights of surface owners and residents? You are saying it is right and fair for those rights to be less important than the rights of the entities that own the minerals…am I correct?

              1. Rarely does a surface holder sell rights . They were split decades ago and most often property was purchased with no discussion of split estate issues. This is not the failed responsibility of the buyer, but that of the seller. Otherwise you are sanctioning the swindling of split estate surface owners who are told, "oh, the mineral rights aren't for sale, but there is nothing to worry about."

                For nearly a century, realtors, title companies, and appraisers looked the other way and set up over 70% of Colorado surface owners for a loss of their rights. There is a renewed interest in transparency now, and surface owners are growing more aware of the predicament they face when they consider buying a split estate property.

                I have been arguing this issue with attorneys, lobbyists, oily politicians, and other misinformed people like you for many years. Do try to come up with something new…or just leave it alone Elliot. I am sure we are both too busy.

                 

                 

                 

                 

                Ken Wonstolen once tried to defend your point

                1. I will finish that errant comment…

                   

                  Ken Wonstolen once tried to defend your point by saying "the state of Colorado has no business transferring value from the mineral estate to the surface estate "(by creating onerous rules)…

                  if so, would you not agree that the inverse is also true? What right does the State have in transferring wealth the other way, by allowing pollution and intrusion that damages the property value of a homeowner?

                  1. Your point seems to be that some homeowners didn't read what they were buying and assumed they were buying more than they bought. Not sure why that is the fault of the mineral right owners even if true.

                    1. That is not what I said. For an attorney, your reading comprehension sucks. Try again.

                      or not…I don't care.

                    2. disclosure ought be meaningful. We encourage people to move here to benefit our economy. In many places, perhaps most, where split estates exist there is not a reasonable assumption that there is real risk. Most folks, even from CO, would look at a subdivision and say to themselves "that wouldn't happen here. the law would not countenance such injustice"

                    3. But Gray in Mountain, that would be a dispute a homeowner should have with the person he/she bought property from – not with the mineral interest holder who purchased their rights years ago. 

                  2. When the diminishment in value is based more on animus, paranoia, and speculation over items that are concrete, why shouldn't the property interest holder be compensated?  

                    1. (compensated for regulations aimed at first property owner's mineral rights and designed to protect the second owner for his/her diminishment in property value that is based on animus, paranoia, and nonconcrete items)

              2. Is that true?  Did most surface owners sell access rights along with mineral rights?  I bet not.

                The reason that mineral rights implicate rights of access is because as a society we decided long ago that we would grant access to subsurface minerals (including the destruction of surface property that often accompanies access) against the legitimate (but we decided lesser) interests of surface owners.  Let's not pretend this is voluntary or that it was inscribed on the tablets on Sinai.  This is something we have every right to change.

                2.  This is something we have every right to change.

                  That is completely correct. Congress granted subsurface rights ages ago and waves of land men went through the west in the early Twentieth century buying up mineral rights from disinterested ranchers. Typically they were sold to interests that were stoking the American military and industrial machines.

                  All the reasons why the estates were split have ceased to be reasons, except for the continued profit of the companies that profit thereby. It is way past time to change this paradigm.

      2. Most of the local control ballot initiatives (with the exception of the revised 75, which was a bit too "sovereign citizen" for most people's taste), emphasized that they were not "takings" – that is, that they would not interfere with pre-existing mineral rights, but would proscribe new drilling within certain distances from public housing and schools. They also reaffirmed the rights of municipalities to call for moratoria and new drilling / exploration within their boundaries.

        So existing mineral rights agreements were not threatened – although some argued that they would likely be endlessly litigated. 

        As far as the Keystone pipeline, the problem is that we are being sold a bill of goods – there will not be  significant jobs created because of it, and it will substantially increase the risk of lasting and harmful leaks  and spills with every span built.  See the story of Mayflower, Arkansas, which still isn't back to normal after the Exxon pipeline under the town burst in March 2013.

        And, the process of extracting tar sands oil is significantly dirtier than other oil processes:

        Dirty tar sands oil

        Pollution from tar sands oil greatly eclipses that of conventional oil. During tar sands oil production alone, levels of carbon dioxide emissions are three to four times higher than those of conventional oil, due to more energy-intensive extraction and refining processes. The Keystone XL pipeline would carry 830,000 barrels of dirty tar sands oil into the United States daily, and result in climate-damaging emissions equal to adding more than 5.6 million new cars to U.S. roads.

        From Friends of the Earth Keystone XL page.

          2. Elliot – I know that I'm playing your game in knocking at the door of a straw house, but….Which houses were seized to build schools recently, and what does that have to do with the Keystone pipeline, or with fracking in Colorado?

            In Greeley, wells discharge right next to schools and apartment complexes…. the schools do collect O&G revenue from it, but possibly at cost to the health of students…..Jobs jobs jobs!

            Elliot, you're purposefully refusing to look at the tradeoffs between money and health, possibly long term health impacts on young people exposed to carcinogens in air and water. This is what environmentalists are proposing: beef up regulations, enforce existing regulations by funding additional inspectors, allow greater setbacks (unlike Greeley's arrangements), and allow for communities to set their own rules for future O&G exploration.

            1. Another thing he is deliberately leaving out is the ability of drillers to now reach out miles with their rigs. There is no reason for the continuing practice of locating wells near sensitive sites. The slight difference in the cost of directional drilling and traditional drilling is the sole calculation to the Oily Boys.

              Only companies with old technology and little capitalization rely on the old setbacks.

               

          3. You should switch the tag from /sarcasm to /specious.  Seizing a house to build a school is a permanent and unmitigable depravation of property.  For parallels to what MJ55 describes, one need only look to land use policies related to other development.  Moratoria on development are perfectly acceptable.  Increased setbacks are also fine, even when they make construction more expensive/difficult or when they force changes to the thing to be constructed.

            1. I often wonder why Elliot continues to exercise his brain by attempting to outwit us with the clever turn of a "legalese" phrase. Most of our trolls are only marginally competent in the "thinking arts", if you will.

              Elliot seems a bit more attached to the real world and has bothered to understand a few things besides greed and spite, the principle motivators of the political party he represents.

               Additionally, he is fairly literate…I think he is actually a progressive, but can't admit it.

              1. Oh, no.  Elliot seems to me to have his feet firmly planted in Objectivism.  As all others do, who cast their lot firmly into the House of Rand, counselor Fladen sometimes sounds progressive.  That changes when one discusses property (viz this one) or the fate of those who fail out of Capitalism 101.

                1. The occasional similarity of purpose in the progressive community and the right wing proletariat fascinates me. The cultural divide that separates us from our economic commonwealth is the masterwork of the Chicago Boys…they know what works.

  5. Cory Gardner wins.  Mark Udall loses.  The moral of the story is that happened because Colorado voters support conservation?

    Your head must be spinning from that.

    Hard to justify that you just got your ass kicked apparently.

    If the voters based their decision on support of conservation, Udall would have won.

    1. Hardly an ass-kicking, the Republican victory is just another step toward their impending demand for a constitutional convention so they can alter the Bill of Rights. Think Augusto Pinochet…think F.W.deKlerk….think Ted Cruz…

      The Republican focus on state legislatures has been motivated by the attempt to install a dictator like Castelo Branco in Brazil. The Free Market experiment cannot succeed in a true democracy. That is why the right is so bent on the destruction of the government. So they can recast it in a mold more suitable to their bottom line.

      1. It's hard to take people seriously as revolutionaries when their heroes and role models are the Duck Dynasty crew and Rush Limbaugh, Victor Head, Dr. Chaps ….the list goes on.

        But I fear you may be right- those actually formulating strategy on the right do have a long term plan, and would like to deconstruct not only the New Deal, but most of the Bill of Rights. What the fanatics don't realize is that their beloved Second Amendment will go the way of the First.

    2. Unfortunately, the inept and lame Udall campaign seldom showed the voters the value of a healthy outdoors and environment for Colorado's economy. Even the League of Conservation Voters had to get into the contraception issue in their ads.

      Udall lost. But Beauprez, the fake conservative, who would have the feds sell off all the taxpayer-owned federal lands in the state (except for military bases & national parks) was also a well-deserved loser.    C.H.B.

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

237 readers online now

Newsletter

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