Colorado’s Energy Policy Should Include Less Politics and More Policy

Governor Jared Polis has set lofty greenhouse gas reduction goals for Colorado, but according to a new report, they are simply unachievable.

The report, released by the Common Sense Institute, while aspirational, highlights the unrealistic expectations of policymakers and the potential negative impacts on the state's energy reliability and economic competitiveness.

While reducing greenhouse gas emissions may seem like a noble objective, it's vital to consider the broader impacts of such policies.

Colorado contributes only a small fraction of the national total in CO2 emissions and a minuscule amount globally. Yet, the state's economy and residents could face significant consequences from implementing these unrealistic goals.

The extensive report highlights the importance of maintaining a diverse energy portfolio, including both fossil fuels and renewable energy. Critics of the governor's plan argue that the transition away from fossil fuels is happening too quickly and will result in substantial financial burdens for individuals and businesses alike.

The Common Sense Institute recommends a more balanced approach, called a "net-zero" policy, which considers both emissions reduction and economic effects while protecting the state's economy and residents. This would allow for the continued use of fossil fuels with proper offsets and GHG capture.

In addition, the group suggests implementing a five-factor framework test to evaluate the potential consequences and costs of energy policies. This includes considering unintended consequences and trade-offs to ensure that regulatory benefits outweigh their costs.

The report also calls for the creation of a non-partisan commission to evaluate energy and climate-related legislation, taking politics out of energy policy. This would ensure that policies are based on facts and evidence rather than partisan agendas.

READ MORE:

Governor Polis and other proponents of the transition to renewable energy argue that it's ultimately beneficial for both the environment and people's health. However, it's essential to consider the potential negative effects of rushing into such a significant change without adequate planning and consideration.

Colorado's energy policy should not be driven by narrow ideological agendas but rather by what is best for the state and its residents. It's what our state needs to maintain economic competitiveness and energy reliability.

Previous
Previous

Denver Probably Only First Stop to Supreme Court for Trump

Next
Next

Colorado is losing track of foster kids who run away, new report says