U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
September 25, 2009 12:12 AM UTC
21 Comments
Rep. Salazar voted against the Waxman-Markey bill…
Lou Leonard from World Wildlife Fund,
he said Boehner got up before the House vote on Waxman-Markey and used a little known procedure, where by the Minority speaker is allocated a ‘minute’ to address the chamber before a vote.
He used this ‘minute’ for 2 hours, creating a mini-filibuster.
after he got done, Pelosi stood up and said
this bill is about one thing –
“JOBS,JOBS,JOBS!”
and sat back down – and it was passed immediately.
We must remind the Senate that
A) we are in a recession
B) this will create Green jobs
Then it will be Republicans are trying to stop job creation.
If only we had Senators in Colorado who would come out in favor.
If only we had state legislators willing to act the past few years.
Oh wait we already have the first.
Mark Udall is a global warming denier!
Only he wants to deny global warming its continued existence, as opposed to continually denying the existence of global warming.
oh wait. What?
I thought CO should follow CA’s lead – and oppose the Bush EPA to deny state’s rights to set their own limit if more restrictive than the fed’s. But our legislature was unwilling to act.
Whothehell was running the House & Senate the past few yearsand what were they doing instead?
We produce more per capita than Los Angeles. The article fails to make that distinction, but it’s in the study.
Not that it’s great, but factually there are no other American cities on their list (of only ten cities worldwide, so it’s far from a comprehensive ranking) that have Denver’s altitude and climate.
The study was about why cities in certain climates and regions produce CO2 at different rates. It was not a scorecard.
Here’s the study:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/1…
The reasons Denver produces more per capita emissions include climate (winter heating), lower density (more driving) and isolation (the study calculates the greenhouse gas emissions produced transporting fuel to the city). The location of DIA within city limits also adds heavily to Denver’s per capita emissions, compared with other cities on the list whose major airports are outside city limits.
They also get a lot of their electricity from Hoover dam and the Four Corners power plant. Is that external to the city in these calculations?
WWII is over. No more bombs. Need the nuclear energy – now. Before we cause more problems.
they can do it as cheaply as building say …. solar generation.
And in the cost analysis, the long term storage expense and public subsidies have to be counted.
(hint- it won’t pencil out)
It isn’t less expensive than solar power with the cost of energy storage factored in? Color me skeptical.
I think solar power and other renewable sources have great potential, but have been even more oversold than nuclear power. I recently read an article on the BBC about wind power in the UK that pointed out that the country needs five times as much rated capacity in wind farms as the actual load to be covered due to the variability of the wind. Solar power is, as far as I know, subject to the same variability problems and more expensive than wind power at this time. Furthermore we are currently building facilities in the best locations and additional facilities are likely to be located in less desirable locations.
Therefore I think nuclear power is a very important part of the power mix and the United States government should set up a government owned corporation to build and operate some new nuclear power plants to perfect designs so when renewable power proves insufficient and more expensive than anticipated we have an option other than sitting in the dark.
#1 you can’t build a nuclear power plant without the Price-Anderson act – that’s the government guarantee that if a mishap like a Three mile island occurs, the federal government will pay the costs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P…
this is the case with most countries. The fact is, that nuclear power is being touted now, because the fossil fuel industry knows this is the best way to keep their strangle hold on energy distribution while at the same time portraying that source as ‘clean’.
In reality, if you removed legislation like this, and subsidies for other fossil fuels, like the 60 billion for ‘clean’ coal in ACES, the cost of these fuel sources would skyrocket.
Which sounds more efficient to you?
Surveying, drilling and finding oil – pumping to a tanker, driving that tanker across the ocean, pumping the oil to a refinery, making gas, sending the gas in trucks and pipelines across the country…
or Building a solar power plant and converting that energy directly into electricity?
By the way, the newest idea is to create a smart grid where you charge your electric car in the day time – while you are work, then at night, when the sun is down, the grid pulls part of your car’s excess charge back into the grid to power the city.
It is already powering cities in Maryland.
http://www.directenergybusines…
We have to face the fact that the energy companies have been able to make money off of energy distribution, and that time is soon to end – especially off of dirty fuel sources.
But we do need the government to be there for the high end of a catastrophe – which is needed more by nuclear. Because insurance companies have to price in the very unlikely if it is horribly expensive. And that’s reasonable for nuclear because we’ve never come close to a meltdown in this country.
And yes, I support nuclear. The Navy has used ot for 40 years with no problems. We get 20% of our electricity from it with no problems. It works and it’s clean.
Colorado is a lousy place for it, though, because of its water intensity. We are, however, a great place for solar and wind.
Nuclear plants really need to be on major waterways such as the Great Lakes, the coasts, or the Mississippi or one of its major tributaries.
I’m a Democrat because I don’t like to have to spin like a top when faced with reports from independent experts. The reality is that nuclear power is less expensive and is a proven technology. If you take off all subsidies the photovoltaic variety of solar power is massively more expensive than anything else out there except wave power (which really sucks right now). Check out this PDF from the California Energy Commission. And, yes, they include insurance costs in their calculations. This is the sort of thing I trust, experts who don’t have an axe to grind, unlike (for example) Greenpeace.
And this ignores my central point about a potential problem with all the clean renewable sources. They may end up being like hydro power. Clean, efficient, inexpensive, and with limits on how many/much we can build due to not enough suitable sites being available. We’d run everything of geothermal like the Icelanders do if we had enough places to build the plants, but we do not!
I admit I may be wrong, but I think wind and solar may prove insufficient. And so to have some safety and still move away from the proven and worse dangers of coal and oil we should build some nuclear power plants. Not a crash program to head to France type levels right away. Just enough to prove new technology so we can build more should the worst happen and it is a choice between nuclear power and dirty coal.
your link is to a 70-page, two year old document signed by an admittedly pro-nuke governor.
I don’t mean to be lazy- maybe I’ll read it someday.
But here’s some that show nuke is more expensive and more risky.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/…
http://www.nirs.org/nukerelaps…
I’m not opposed to nuclear power on it’s face.
But let the market do it. I’m not overly worried about insurance- if it has to be a public option, ok. But no loan guarantees. I haven’t seen a nuke plant yet that went forward without.
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/p…
http://www.newsweek.com/id/137501
But I think the government should allow private companies to work together to come up with 2 or 3 standard designs that they all build.
And why is it so hard to recycle in this state.
In Maine you have to pay a deposit on any drinking container you buy. The highways are not littered as they are here. It really makes a difference.
And lets quit buying bottled water and reuse the containers we have.
Do something pioneered in another state? but , but we’re Coloroado!
you are spot on
Michigan passed the first deposit law back in the 1970’s and now is looking at a deposit law for all bottled beverages (the law currently only extends to carbonated beverages).
It would be nice if Colorado could catch up to the late 20th Century.
And for chrissake, stop buying bottled water, the stuff out of your tap is cleaner, supports good paying jobs and does far less harm to the environment.