home

Drilling Has Colo. Republicans Losing Faith

The Washington Post reports that many Colorado Republicans on the Western Slope are losing faith in their party. Chief among their complaints is the Bush Administration's support of intense oil and gas drilling activity.

Long the most reliably conservative expanse of a state that has gone red in six of the past seven presidential contests, Colorado's western third shows evidence of the "purpling" that has made Colorado look increasingly like a swing state.

Colorado now has 32,000 active oil and gas wells. Another 40,000 are planned.

At the behest of the White House, which made accelerated oil and gas leasing the top priority of the Bureau of Land Management, the gas industry has in the past five years transformed huge tracts of an iconic Western landscape into something resembling industrial zones. As Coloradoans struggle to adjust to the changes -- a steady flow of heavy rigs on back roads, powerful odors from evaporation ponds and a small army of roughnecks gobbling methamphetamine to work 12-hour shifts -- disquiet grows over federal plans to open the spigot wider yet.

Unhappy Republicans on the Western Slope were a factor in the elections of Sen. Ken Salazar, Gov. Bill Ritter and Congressman John Salazar.

All three Democrats found support in GOP enclaves while calling for "balance" in energy extraction.

Now that conservative residents adversely impacted by the drilling are aligning with environmentalists, the "purpling" effect may increase. Here's a sampling of comments of Republican voters interviewed in the article:

  • "The Republicans have kind of lost touch with reality."
  • "They just want the money. 'Show me the money.' ''
  • "We're seeing a lot more liberal voting in this area, and I think a lot of it has to do with energy development,"
  • People want people in office who are willing to fight to protect their health, their property values and the lifestyle they moved to Colorado to enjoy."

Colorado receives $300 million a year from oil and gas drilling. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like our state legislators want to do anything but spend the revenue the drilling brings in:

A legislative committee will look at ways to overhaul how Colorado spends revenue from oil and gas drilling to quickly inject $100 million or more into northwest Colorado to fix roads, housing and schools affected by the area's energy boom.

Using the oil and gas revenue to fix the damage the drilling causes to our infrastructure won't undo the damage to our state. The beauty of Colorado has never been in its roads or housing. It's in the mountains, the wilderness and the vast expanse of pristine land that stretches further than the eye can see. Once it's gone, no amount of blood money will be able to replace it. The problem affects all of us in Colorado, but the Republicans turn a blind eye to it at their peril.

[Cross-posted at 5280.com]

< Norman Hsu: Where's the Crime? | Michael Mukasey May Be Named AG Monday >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    at that rate, (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by cpinva on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 01:56:41 AM EST
    colorado will sink. should take care of the problem.

    A debacle decades (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by tnthorpe on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 04:20:31 AM EST
    in the making. American energy policy is strangled by Detroit and Big Oil, with friends on both sides of the aisle. I remember the Arab Oil Embargo as a kid and it just bafles me to this day that instead of massive research into clean, renewable, sustainable forms of energy we're still chomping down the coal and oil by the megaton. A lack of imagination can be fatal, and from CAFE standards to energy policy, that's been the story here. As for jobs, inventing a whole new, cleaner industry would produce them by the carbon-neutral train full, but I guess the future doesn't make too many campaign contributions.

    Still, I'm glad that come accountability is being visited on the Colo. Republicans, whose party is in absolute thrall to Big Oil. Now for Appalachian mountain top mining, better CAFE standards, and  carbon neutral, or better, energy production.

    The issue is cost (1.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 08:11:34 AM EST
    The issue is cost.  Petroleum is the lowest cost source of transportation fuel.  There has been all kinds of research onto alternatives.  BUT THEY ALL COST MORE.

    Saying we should use these higher cost alternatives is another way of saying we should all settle for a lower standard of living.  Campaign contributions or no campaign contributions, running on a promise to lower standards of living is a Loser.
     

    Parent

    Cost Justification (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by RustedView on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:38:31 AM EST
    Air travel was extremely expensive in the past.  As were computers.  Increased research and development, and deployment go far to lowering the cost of alternatives.  To suggest otherwise is merely a diversion.  Oil and gas will always be cheaper while there is no research and deployment of alternatives.

    Parent
    Alternate reality (1.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 12:37:07 PM EST

    Oil and gas will always be cheaper while there is no research and deployment of alternatives.

    No research into alternatives!  What alternate reality is this?

    Parent

    They all cost more? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Edger on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 08:20:26 AM EST
    Which ones cost more in misery and lives than our reliance on oil and our determination to control the access to and price of oil?

    Often at gunpoint and the by annihilation of other societies and peoples, or by the poisoning of our own environment.

    Higher standard of... what?

    Parent

    Less misery (1.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 12:47:38 PM EST

    Which ones cost more in misery and lives than our reliance on oil and our determination to control the access to and price of oil?

    Well thats simple. There is way more misery and lives lost in places that rely on muscle power and burning wood or dung than on petroleum based economies.  It is our reliance on low cost readily available energy that results in longer lives and less misery.

    Parent

    Not all the (none / 0) (#23)
    by tnthorpe on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 03:08:29 AM EST
    costs of oil are being borne by this generation. The environmental degradation, the political degradation, the way falsely cheap oil impacts urban development in the form of sprawl, and so on are all costs that later generations will have to bear. In essence, we're stealing from the future to perpetuate our oil-based consumerism now. If even Alan Greenspan can admit that the Iraq debacle is about oil, then you can see how the total costs for oil aren't paid at the pump by any stretch of the imagination.

    As oil continues to rise in price, alternatives will become more attractive, and current thinking suggests that oil sources are near peak now. Oil is only going to get more expensive and the means for extracting it from oil sands and similar geologies more environmentally damaging. In other words, if you want to maintain or improve the standard of living, research into everything from fuel cells, to solar, to wind energy needs to happen now in the most urgent way possible. Continuing to rely on oil as we are is a sure fire loser.

    Parent

    Of course it is a loser, (none / 0) (#24)
    by Pancho on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 09:44:52 AM EST
    but then why is Ted Kennedy opposing windfarms?

    Everybody seems to want to protect "the environment" as long as it causes them not one iota of personal discomfort.

    Parent

    Who? (1.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 11:21:59 AM EST

    Who needs those oil and gas service jobs anyway?  Let them eat cake.

    Great economics (1.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 04:29:24 PM EST

    We can all just be tourist destinations for each other and get those highy paying jobs changing the sheets in hotels.  Gak.

    This is the oldest story in the world (1.00 / 1) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 11:03:20 PM EST
    and it isn't Demo or Repub. It's human nature to its nasty core.

    And its title is:

    I got mine, now get the hell out of my boat. Swim for yourself.


    You know this from personal experience? (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by Edger on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 03:31:27 AM EST
    It's completely (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by jondee on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 01:02:35 PM EST
    beyond Jim's ken to imagine any motivation that isnt based on good ole fashioned, porcine, GOP selfishness.

    Parent
    And I thought he was just pretending all along... (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by Edger on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 01:19:54 PM EST
    Reality and karma (none / 0) (#3)
    by Edger on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 01:40:02 PM EST
    have such a liberal bias and nasty way of sneaking up from behind and biting them on the ass when ignored, doesn't it?

    And to heck with the locals!! (1.00 / 1) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 10:58:34 PM EST
    People want people in office who are willing to fight to protect their health, their property values and the lifestyle they moved to Colorado to enjoy."

    Right edger??

    You wouldn't want them to starting making some real money and not have to wait tables for all those new Lefties who made enough money to get the heck out of Dodge...


    Parent

    Wow.... (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 03:30:11 AM EST
    It's metastasizing, huh? When do you have it removed?

    Parent
    Gotta give it up (none / 0) (#22)
    by jondee on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 03:24:55 PM EST
    for Jim and Abdul: their concern for the American worker and American jobs is second only to their concern for the Chinese, Indian, Bangledeshi etc worker and the investors in outsourcing U.S companies. And thats saying somthing.

    Where would hard working Americans be without men like these protecting them from latte' drinking liberals and Hollywood elites.

    From Senator Craig, Jim and Abdul did learn, how to treat a worker with faux concern.

    Parent

    I tend to agree with (none / 0) (#21)
    by Pancho on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 02:47:12 PM EST
    you liberals on environmental issues, but I'd like to know what any of you are doing other than calling for laws to stop others from hurting the environment.

    Personally, I ride my bike to work, live in a small house, bring my own bags to the store, recycle everything I can, and generally do as much as I can to decrease my energy consumption and waste.

    It drives me nuts to see the liberal elites preaching conservation while jetting around the world. They build huge "green" vacation homes and live in even larger first and second homes. Why should anyone listen to them? The message is lost when it is not being practiced by the messenger.