President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%↑

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
June 29, 2009 07:14 PM UTC

Salazar Faces Consequences Of Climate Bill Vote

  • 13 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

From the Colorado Independent:

Colorado environmental groups were quick to criticize Democratic Congressman John Salazar Saturday after he joined the two Republican members of the state delegation in voting against the American Clean Energy and Security Act Friday.

The landmark climate change bill, which seeks to reduce carbon emissions in the United States 80 percent by 2050, passed out of the House by a scant seven-vote margin late Friday (219-212), with Colorado Democrats Diana DeGette, Betsy Markey, Ed Perlmutter and Jared Polis voting for the bill.

“We applaud the Colorado representatives who voted for this critical legislation, yet we are disappointed with Reps. Salazar, [Mike] Coffman, and [Doug] Lamborn for opposing this critical legislation,” Pam Kiely, legislative director for Denver-based Environment Colorado, said in a release.

Salazar, brother of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, told the Denver Post he couldn’t justify raising utility rates in his largely rural 3rd Congressional District at a time when the economy is just now starting to stabilize.

Markey also represents a mostly rural and more conservative district but voted in favor of the bill because of last-minute pro-agriculture changes to it. DeGette, vice chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee that painstakingly negotiated the framework of the bill over the last several weeks, said the costs to the average American will be negligible.

This vote did go a little differently than we expected, with Markey as the more politically vulnerable moderate Democrat–and the climate bill being singled out by Republicans for attack–expected to vote against, perhaps even with approval from House leadership given her delicate position. Instead, she voted for the bill and greatly pleased environmental interests who supported her election, and Rep. John Salazar draws fire from the same lobby for voting against.

Both Salazar and Markey knew there were votes to be both lost and gained with different constituencies depending on their vote–who came out the biggest loser? Our view is that Markey had more to lose by voting yes than Salazar had by voting no going in, which in hindsight will rally liberals to Markey as well as hurt Salazar more than it otherwise might have. There’s also the problem Salazar’s vote creates for Colorado Senators Mark Udall and Michael Bennet as they take up the bill, having legitimized some talking points against it with his vote. It will be a shame, but people are going to have to be reminded of Salazar’s regrettable “rain disproves global warming” gaffe as part of dealing with that–not exactly his finest hour.

That said, don’t look for this one vote to seriously alienate Salazar from his core of support going into 2010–it’s not going to be his only opportunity to take action on the issue, and his local popularity runs deeper than other Democrats in the process of annoying their base.

Tweet
Share

Comments

13 thoughts on “Salazar Faces Consequences Of Climate Bill Vote”

  1. But at the same time, it’s good to be seen as a maverick in the 3rd. For a guy who won his first race with heavy backing from the League of Conservation Voters, though, he certainly thumbs his nose at the environmental community on a fairly regular basis. Of course, any Republican from that area would be a certain “no” vote on every environmental issue, so perhaps “maybe” is better than “hell no.”

    From what I know about Salazar, he’s incredibly safe in that seat, but the guy always thinks someone’s about to rise up and beat him. Probably a good attitude to have to make sure no one ever does!

  3. This legislation will do little, if any, reductions of worldwide carbon emissions but will have a significant effect on utility rates, especially here in Colorado.

    I’ve heard this second-hand (and would appreciate any who can refute or verify it): Supposedly when asked about the effect that this legislation would have on lower income individuals, Michael Bennet replied that so much money would be collected, Congress could use some of it for tax credits to help out low income taxpayers.

    So, this sounds like its Cap and Tax, with an element of Robin Hood economics mixed in.

    2. Heard it second hand… right. It’s going to be heavily molested/changed/neutered if/before it becomes law. Let’s begin the debate and see some real facts before just launching into “significant effect on utility rates” talking points.

    3. From the FactCheck.org website:

      “Even the conservative, pro-Republican Heritage Foundation figures the average family would see its energy bill increase by $1,500 a year, less than half what the GOP claims. A Congressional Budget Office expert recently estimated the cost per household at an average of $1,600 a year, but that figure doesn’t account for energy rebates Obama has proposed giving to consumers. If the government did use revenue from cap and trade “to pay an equal lump-sum rebate to every household,” the CBO expert said, “lower-income households could be better off.”

      For the complete report:

      http://tinyurl.com/nuxcmt

        2. After all, the numbers are based on an “average” US household. This means no regard was taken for regional or state energy costs nor energy sources.

          Plus, given that future “costs” are typically overestimates by 1-2 magnitudes (little to no consideration being given for innovation in response to regulation), all these cost estimates are likely way high.

          Plus the fact is, I don’t care. My electricity is all solar. Every time electricity rates go up this accelerates the time to break even on the solar installation!

          1. We have a winner!

            Colorado has a leg up on the rest of the country thanks to Amendment 37.  Our utilities are already well on the road to meeting the 2020 cap, and we might even see our rates go down as our utilities are able to sell credits on the cap-and-trade market.

            As we continue down this road, I think we’ll find that many of these supposed scary costs will vanish as we approach them.  Solar and wind power will take us through 2020, substituting for the coal and gas plants that are scheduled to be built.  By that time we should have viable renewable replacements for oil/coal/gas to take us through to the very ambitious 2050 goal.  The current generation of renewable energy power plants have already proven cost-effective; the future is bright and clean.

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

226 readers online now

Newsletter

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