Bipartisan support for Colorado's clean-air laws undermines accusation of Obama overreach

15 Comments

by: Jason Salzman

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Attorney General Cynthia Coffman.

It’s irritating when officials and pundits here in Colorado grandstand about President Obama’s climate change initiatives as being overreach, without pointing out that, as a matter of fact, state efforts to regulate global-warming emissions from power plants have won bipartisan support.

An article in The Denver Post last month reported that Attorney General Cynthia Coffman has decided to sue the federal government to stop Obama’s Clean Coal Plan, which aims to cut carbon dioxide emissions in Colorado by 28 percent from 2012 levels over the next 15 years.

The Post reported that “Coffman describes the measure as another EPA and Obama administration authority overreach.”

To its credit, The Post added this fact:

Colorado lawmakers under a Clean Air, Clean Jobs Act in 2010 required regulated utilities to develop plans for reducing air pollution. These plans launched utilities on efforts to replace coal plants with energy generated using renewable sources and natural gas.

Omitted, however, is the crucial information that Colorado’s Clean Air, Clean Jobs of 2010 received bipartisan support, getting the votes of numerous GOP lawmakers in the Colorado legislature, including muckety-muck Republicans like former state senators Josh Penry and Greg Brophy and former state representatives Frank McNulty, Ellen Roberts, and Amy Stephens.

Thanks to the 2010 law, and other state measures, some of which admittedly had less bipartisan support, Colorado already has a plan to reach 70 percent of the reductions mandated by Obama’s Clean Coal Plan, according to Western Resource Advocates.

Colorado has worked in a bipartisan way to address climate change, and the attorney general should be asked to explain why she’s politicizing and wasting time on a lawsuit that runs counter to Colorado’s approach to this issue.

15 thoughts on “Bipartisan support for Colorado’s clean-air laws undermines accusation of Obama overreach”

Progressicat says:

September 8, 2015 at 3:43 pm

Colorado has worked in a bipartisan way to address climate change, and the attorney general should be asked to explain why she’s politicizing and wasting time on a lawsuit that runs counter to Colorado’s approach to this issue.

A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream. The scorpion asks the frog to carry him across on its back. The frog asks, "How do I know you won't sting me?" The scorpion says, "because if I sting you while you cross the stream, surely I shall drown ."

The frog is satisfied, and they set out. But in midstream, the scorpion stings the frog. The frog feels the onset of paralysis and starts to sink, but has just enough time to gasp "Why? Now you shall surely drown!"

The scorpion replies: "Because it is my nature."

Log in to Reply
1. BlueCat says:
  
  September 8, 2015 at 5:20 pm
  
  Reporters are lazy.
  
  Log in to Reply
Moderatus says:

September 8, 2015 at 3:44 pm

There is a world of difference between a state legislature doing something in a bipartisan fashion and Washington, DC shoving it down our throats.

If you don't see the difference, you must be a liberal.

Log in to Reply
1. BlueCat says:
  
  September 8, 2015 at 5:24 pm
  
  There's a world of difference between you and a sentient being capable of independent thought, modster. If you don't see the difference, you must be a base Republican.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Duke Cox says:
    
    September 8, 2015 at 8:30 pm
    
    LOL…
    
    Log in to Reply
2. MichaelBowman says:
  
  September 8, 2015 at 5:30 pm
  
  What next? You're going to tell us that when the wind currents hit our Kansas-Nebraska border that the airflow returns back to Denver? Thus, the federal government shouldn't have a say in interstate air pollution or air standards?
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. davebarnes says:
    
    September 8, 2015 at 7:38 pm
    
    Who, in Denver, gives a crap about pollution in Kansas or Nebraska?
    No one.
    Doesn't a state with a unicameral legislature deserve some pollution?
    Doesn't a state with Sam Brownback as governor deserve some pollution?
    I say: Yes, to both.
    http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/plague-o-both-your-houses
    
    Log in to Reply
3. spaceman65 says:
  
  September 9, 2015 at 12:54 pm
  
  We've had a lot of crap shoved down our throats by the state legislature. And General Coffman is just the one to help that other branch do it!
  
  Log in to Reply
davebarnes says:

September 8, 2015 at 4:09 pm

ObamaCare = bad
ObamaAir = bad
Obama[insert anything here] = bad

Is that too difficult to understand?

Log in to Reply
mamajama55 says:

September 8, 2015 at 6:24 pm

So this lady has a problem with government overreach when it is the EPA protecting citizens from being poisoned by coal fumes, but doesn't have a problem overreaching the Constitutionally-protected first amendment rights of citizens.

AG Coffman wants a "permanent ban" on protests outside the Denver courthouse, even though it has been a designated "free speech zone" since 2010. She wants to be a dictator, telling Denver how to balance public safety and protest.

Log in to Reply
1. Diogenesdemar says:
  
  September 8, 2015 at 8:00 pm
  
  Well, I suppose it is much harder to protest in downtown Denver when you can't breathe … ???
  
  Log in to Reply
HeavyG says:

September 8, 2015 at 9:44 pm

Since her election, she has pretty much face planted with everything she has tried. The ~~third~~ ~~fourth fifth~~ umpteenth time is the charm? Nope.

Log in to Reply
DenverMom says:

September 8, 2015 at 11:26 pm

She will self destruct. Who is paying for this lawsuit? The JBC may rein her in, and her own "client", CDPHE is not going to cooperate.

Log in to Reply
1. BlueCat says:
  
  September 8, 2015 at 11:51 pm
  
  You've got to hand it to her, though. You have to admire a person who managed to get through law school so handicapped by being pretty much dumb as a post. I guess she must be really good at memorizing stuff.
  
  Log in to Reply
notaskinnycook says:

September 9, 2015 at 12:09 am

What I can't quite figure out is what she's trying to get. Why is she's going against the wishes of the legislature with this suit? Who is she shilling for? Did Mikey put her up to this? Did she once work for O&G and this is some sort of sop to her old bosses? Is she setting up her next gig after term limits take her out? Gail Norton went to work for O&G when she timed out. Someone 'splian it to me, I'm lost.

Log in to Reply