A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
The Pueblo Chieftain, June 10, on $4-a-gallon gasoline:
What seemed unimaginable by many just a year ago has happened: The average price of gasoline across the nation has hit $4.
As the price has gone up over the past several months, people have been flocking to smaller vehicles—even though new car payments and lower trade-ins on their bigger rigs may actually result in a net drain on some people’s pocketbooks. But as a result, General Motors announced last week it was shuttering four of its production plants that make light trucks and SUVs.
On Monday Saudi Arabia announced it will call for a summit between oil producing countries and consumer states to discuss soaring energy prices. The kingdom will also work with OPEC to “guarantee the availability of oil supplies now and in the future.”
Before anyone in this country starts throwing rocks at Middle Eastern oil producers, though, there are targets closer to home, namely those who have steadfastly opposed drilling for oil in areas known to hold rich reserves and opposed new refineries. All this dates back to the administration of President Jimmy Carter, and has been stock in trade of the liberals in Congress ever since.
The radical environmental lobby has stymied attempts to open a tiny piece of the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, arguing that it would harm caribou and befoul the environment. The history of the Alaska Pipeline would teach otherwise. Similarly, proposals to drill in coastal areas have met with unyielding resistance. Heaven forbid that Barbra Streisand should have to see a drilling platform off the Pacific shore.
Meanwhile, in Canada, a great deal of new exploration has begun in areas known to hold a treasure trove of energy. The same could happen in the United States.
The U.S. Geological Survey recently published its official results of a groundbreaking study that confirms a massive oil reserve in an area the locals have nicknamed the “Bakken,” which stretches across North Dakota, Montana and southeastern Saskatchewan.
The study reports a 25-fold increase in the amount of oil that can be recovered, compared to the agency’s 1995 estimate. Discovered over 50 years ago, the Bakken deposit—once impossible to extract—is now being hailed as the single largest oil find in U.S. history.
That’s because, today, thanks to breakthrough drilling techniques like horizontal drilling—the same technique that would be used at ANWR—the Bakken’s oil can be extracted relatively cheaply. If that happens, this light, sweet oil could cost Americans just $16 per barrel. Compare that to Monday’s $135 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
Will cooler heads finally prevail in Washington to allow this and other resources to be developed? Or will those who would want us to freeze in the dark—and shuck our cars for bicycles—continue their grip on the pols?
Something to consider come Election Day.
Editorial: 4764.txt
———
The Durango Herald, June 9, on Sen. Hillary Clinton:
The Greeks probably have a word for what occurred. The well-practiced and well-connected candidate who topples her early opponents, only to be upended by a youthful and skilled orator who embodies a more inclusive world and a different way of doing things. Her traditional political background and support for the Iraq war lost out—narrowly—to his claim to see the world in a different light and to pledge to deliver a different way of leading.
Hillary Clinton had the political network and the big donors, and as a former first lady, knew the players and many of the issues. She had learned her new state, New York, well, and her Senate seat provided a firm stepping stone to the presidency. She was, and is, focused and tireless.
But George W. Bush’s presidency set the stage for Barack Obama, rather than Clinton, to acquire the Democratic Party’s nomination.
Bush’s failed war, his hard line against the world’s authoritarian leaders that as yet shows no results, and his general disdain for multinational cooperation, has made a candidate born of a white mother and an African father, who as a child lived overseas and who then excelled in schooling and in politics—without the benefit of his family name, appealing. Obama successfully talked of reaching out, and of change. Most Americans want to avoid another Iraq, and blame Bush’s limited world outlook for the war.
Clinton and her aides budgeted for victory by Super Tuesday, and won the big states. But Obama was persistent and unflappable, his oratory skills never failing, and his fundraising based on small but numerous donors helped him keep the lead in delegates.
The proximity of Clinton’s husband, with his natural political skills, detracted from her own abilities and caused voters to wonder at times who would be making the decisions in the White House. Obama, on the other hand, attended the most influential black church in Chicago without realizing the damage that could come from being in the presence of its sharp-tongued minister.
Did Democrats fault Clinton for changing her mind about the importance of the delegates in Florida and Michigan as she struggled to add to her count, or did they just feel that was a part of politics? And at the end, the superdelegates, created to give some stability to the nominating process, abandoned the “stable” candidate for the candidate of change, and the likely party winner.
The run for the Democratic nomination has been a fascinating story. In a few weeks, likely, the contest between Barack Obama and John McCain will be in full swing. That will be Part 2 of the 2008 election contest.
Editorial: n&article—path/opinion/opin080609.htm
———
STATE/REGIONAL:
Rocky Mountain News, Denver, June 9, on the need to close the loophole in the state’s smoking ban:
The 2007 legislature repealed the casino exemption in the Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act. As of Jan. 1, bettors could no longer light up in casinos. It simply wasn’t fair that casinos had been given a break on smoking that was denied so many other establishments when the law was passed the year before.
Or at least we thought the exemption had been eliminated.
Instead, patrons at two of Colorado’s gaming halls are puffing away, and it’s possible other smoker-friendly casinos might emerge as well.
Last week, Bronco Billy’s Casino in Cripple Creek became the second Colorado betting spot to openly allow smoking in its gaming areas—joining Black Hawk’s Wild Card Saloon and Casino, which never observed the smoking ban to begin with.
How did this happen? Casino owners claim that their properties satisfy the legal definition of a cigar bar—where smoking is still allowed—and they’re probably right. Any business that meets the cigar-bar standard, even if its primary revenue source isn’t tobacco sales, can let customers light up to their hearts’ content.
These businesses are exploiting a “loophole” that’s big enough to fly a jumbo jet through.
State lawmakers tried but failed to fix this flaw in the closing days of this year’s session. Tightening the definition of a cigar bar should be a priority for the 2009 General Assembly, or even more businesses may make a mockery of the smoking ban and tilt what is now a fairly level playing field.
When the 2006 legislature banned smoking in most places that accommodate the public, it allowed several reasonable exceptions, including enclosed smoking lounges at Denver International Airport, along with retail tobacco shops and cigar bars—typically small taverns or clubs that don’t serve food but sell booze and smokes.
The threshold for becoming a cigar bar, however, isn’t that high. A business that gets at least 5 percent of its revenues from tobacco sales or sells $50,000 worth of retail tobacco products a year qualifies.
Wild Card owner Ed Smith told Rocky columnist Bill Johnson he never obeyed the ban because the convenience store at the rear of the casino sold some $300,000 in tobacco products last year. The state Gaming Commission reviewed the books, consulted its lawyers, and concluded that Smith was right—the Wild Card met the legal definition of a cigar bar.
Lawmakers tried to settle the matter with Senate Bill 225, which would have outlawed smoking at cigar bars with gaming machines. The bill passed the Senate but failed in the House the day before the session ended.
Next year, lawmakers should try again with a measure that both affirmatively prohibits smoking at any gaming establishment and tightens the definition of cigar bars, so other businesses might not use that designation to evade the smoking ban.
Other states have set a threshold for cigar bars based on percentage of sales, rather than a dollar amount, which can be eroded by inflation over time. In New York and Connecticut, for instance, cigar bars must generate at least 10 percent of their revenues from tobacco sales; Arizona ups the ante by requiring cigar bars to get 10 percent of sales from cigars—cigarettes and pipe tobacco don’t count.
Legislation based perhaps on Arizona’s approach, coupled with an explicit ban on smoking in any business with a gambling license, should minimize the temptation to game the smoking ban.
Editorial:
———
The Denver Post, June 6, on building a new reservoir in northern Colorado:
A massive $426 million water project, anchored by the proposed 170,000-acre-foot Glade Reservoir, will reshape the face of northern Colorado for the rest of this century if it is built.
With the stakes so high for the region’s economy, environment and lifestyle, it’s important not to rush blindly into a decision on the Northern Integrated Supply Project, designed to supply water for at least 80,000 new homes in the area.
That’s why The Post urges the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to grant the request of Fort Collins and Greeley, supported by Larimer County, for an additional 90 days to review the massive draft environmental impact statement released April 30.
The NISP issue could shape up as the largest environmental controversy in the state since the administration of President George H.W. Bush vetoed the proposed Two Forks Dam on the South Platte River in November 1990. That’s why it’s vital to review it carefully before deciding to authorize, or veto, the project.
The draft environmental impact statement itself runs to 700 data-packed pages. Supporting technical appendices total more than 2,500 pages. Backers, opponents and the cities affected by the project haven’t had time for their experts to evaluate that information.
Yet, the Corps has allowed for only 90 days to review and comment on the DEIS—a period that ends July 30. The cities want that date extended by 90 days to Oct. 28.
It’s a reasonable request. The NISP project has been a gleam in developers’ eyes for 40 years, but the massive DEIS revealed some new and surprising information. For one thing, the project could result in a 71 percent drop in peak flows in the Cache la Poudre River—which even one of the project’s boosters conceded would reduce the majestic waterway to a “trickle” as it passes through Fort Collins and further downstream.
Plus, impounding the spring runoff would reduce the Poudre to little more than a storm sewer by eliminating its ability to renew itself by scouring silt and algae from its natural pools. Last, but by no means least, the NISP plan would have major effects on Fort Collins’ water quality, which would take tens of millions to remedy.
There may well be ways to mitigate and even resolve these problems, but the experts involved need time to review and analyze the voluminous data and prepare a response.
If the Corps tries to ram the project through without such a thorough review, it can expect the kinds of lawsuits and political protests that killed Two Forks.
The Corps should give Fort Collins and Greeley the time they need to evaluate this massive project.
Don’t let haste make waste of northern Colorado.
Editorial:
