Chauncee Smith

Going Green vs. Getting Green: Colorado’s Environmental Showdown

The ebb and flow of environmental progress has arisen once again. Taking a brief hiatus from the familiar stomping grounds of D.C., the going green vs. getting green ("money") showdown appears to have settled out west. Specifically, over the course of the past year, Colorado has made moves to become America's environmental vanguard. Led by a Democratic governor and majority legislature, Colorado has recently enacted a statewide greenhouse gas reduction plan, renewable energy executive orders, and America's first carbon tax in the City of Boulder.

In an ironically timely fashion, however, the University of Colorado (CU) Regents has taken action to stifle Colorado's eco-friendly aims by installing GOP oil and gas executive Bruce Benson as its new university president. By way of a 6-3 partisan split vote, Benson's appointment suggests that he's the latest beneficiary of GOP cronyism installed for a specific purpose. Namely, getting green.

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Colorado's higher education system has been in financial woes since the early 90's. In dire need of increasing revenue, the CU Regents' conservative majority found Benson's dual-ability to "get green" and halt Colorado from "going green" to be ideal.

Benson’s resume speaks for itself:
• Oil and gas company CEO, check,
• Firmly believes that global warming is a hoax, check,
• National Co-Chair of Mitt Romney for President, check,
• Former Colorado Republican Party Chairman, check,
• Committed multiple DUI offenses, check,
• Highest educational degree attained: Bachelors

Benson's appointment as University of Colorado President based on his stellar qualifications -- of being a money hungry anti-green Republican tycoon -- is also reflective of who’s winning Colorado's environmental showdown. Specifically, a close look at Colorado's carbon-tax suggests that the state's highly touted eco-friendliness may not be as progressive as portrayed.

Colorado's "carbon tax" is actually a negligible monthly fee charged to Boulder, Colorado electricity users: $1.33 for residents, $3.83 for businesses, and $268 for industrial companies. Considering that the average Boulder resident makes over $70,000 per year, $1.33 and $3.83 is clearly an insignificant payment for most Boulder residents and commercial businesses. In regards to industrial companies, the Boulder City Council reports that its carbon tax is "not designed to influence company investment or consumer decisions."

By charging such a minute amount, Boulder's electricity fee isn't actually a carbon tax because it doesn't cause Boulder electricity users to reduce their electricity usage nor greenhouse gas emissions. In contrast, true carbon tax policies actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions by imposing fees costly enough to make people decrease their electricity usage.

Further, under Boulder's "carbon tax," the only people to bear the social cost of their greenhouse gas emissions are poor people for whom every dollar matters. And as in the usual course of things, here, once again, corporate interests get off scot-free. Besides being exempt from the "carbon tax," Boulder's privately-owned electricity company, Xcel Energy, also receives city funding for agreeing to impose the tax on local residents and businesses.

So, in Colorado's going green vs. getting green battle, it appears as though getting-green moneyed-interests have the better hand once again. If Colorado's politics serve as any litmus test for what's going on beyond the beltway, the future doesn't look too rosy for America’s environmental affairs. Hopefully, Colorado and the rest of America's eco-friendly communities can prevail in the next going green vs. getting green showdown.

Chauncee Smith: Author Bio | Other Posts
Posted at 12:30 PM, Mar 06, 2008 in Energy & Environment
Permalink | Email to Friend