A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
The Denver Post, Feb. 25, on need for something to be done about devastation in Syria:
The only thing certain about the Syrian government’s bloody rampage against its own citizens is that something must be done.
The problem is what.
A conference of 60 nations convened Feb. 24 in Tunisia to discuss just that. The meeting ended with calls for Syria to allow humanitarian groups into the country to deal with the devastation. It also pledged millions of dollars in food and medicine, which would enter Syria from bordering countries like Turkey and Jordan. But conferees made no effort to deal with the harder questions.
The death toll in Syria has reached at least 7,000, and most observers expect the violence to continue. The devastation in the city of Homs has provoked international outcry. And with the deaths of foreign journalists, who appear to have been targeted by Syrian forces, the outcry grows louder.
But those at the conference—which billed itself as “friends of the Syrian people”—could not agree on what action to take, other than to condemn the violence, tighten sanctions and to ask the United Nations to consider the idea of a peace-keeping force when the violence does end.
As we know, though, the United Nations has been part of the problem. When the United States and its allies tried to tighten sanctions against Syria, Russia and China vetoed the Security Council resolution. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, talking to reporters after the meeting in Tunis, called the vetoes “despicable” and asked of Russian and China, “Whose side are they on? They are clearly not on the side of the Syrian people.”
The recent history of the Arab Spring suggests that the violence won’t end until President Bashar al-Assad steps down. Assad seems to be following the same path taken by Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi. Assad lost the opportunity to take a moderate approach to the protests and now far too much blood has been spilled.
But Syria presents a far more difficult situation than Libya. The opposition in Syria is fractured. It doesn’t have a military stronghold. In a full-fledged civil war, the Syrian ethnic divides threaten to spill into neighboring countries. And, in what Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., calls “the irony of ironies,” the opposition has found allies in al-Qaeda and Hamas.
“You just have to look at the map to see the dangers,” said Udall, who serves on the Senate Intelligence and Armed Forces committees. But Udall also sees opportunities in the map, particularly in the opportunity for havens being set up to protect civilian populations along the borders with Turkey and Jordan.
Clinton left open all options in Syria and made it clear that the Syrian regime could not stand. We hope that the lead role in supporting the opposition comes from the Arab states, whose stake in isolating Syria—Iran’s only ally in the region—is at least as great as the stakes for all of us horrified by the Syrian violence.
But it’s more than a regional fight at this point. As President Obama said, it’s “important that we not be bystanders during these extraordinary events.”
Editorial:
———
The Daily Sentinel, Feb. 27, on revival of politics of pipeline plan:
A permit for the controversial Keystone XL Pipeline from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico was rejected by the Obama administration earlier this year, the result of a political showdown with Republicans in Congress.
Now a portion of the pipeline is coming back, and along with it, political posturing.
TransCanada, the company behind the Keystone XL Pipeline, said it now hopes to build the southern-most section of the pipeline, from Oklahoma to the Texas Gulf Coast. Because this section of the pipeline doesn’t cross an international border, no State Department approval is required for this portion, which would cost an estimated $3.2 billion.
The company also said it plans to renew its application for the full pipeline in the near future.
Even so, President Barack Obama signaled Monday he was ready to offer his support to the southern portion of the Keystone pipeline because it would help alleviate a glut of oil at an Oklahoma storage facility.
But politics are part of the equation. An Obama spokesman also said Monday that the president is willing to look at any renewed application for the Keystone pipeline. He only rejected the earlier application because Republicans forced his hand by mandating that Obama make a decision on the initial application within a few months.
The GOP members of Congress certainly were playing politics when they added the Keystone mandate to an unrelated bill. And Obama was doing so when he announced before then that he intended to postpone any decision about Keystone until late this year—after the November election.
Meanwhile, some environmental groups that pushed Obama hard to reject the earlier permit for the Keystone XL pipeline were furious with him Monday for expressing support for the southern portion of the pipeline.
So goes energy policy in our country. It’s driven by emotion and re-election strategies more than common sense. Which makes it all the more remarkable that a combination of oil and gas discoveries and new technologies have us on the way toward meeting most of our energy needs with domestic oil and gas, and actually becoming a net oil and gas exporter.
Few experts predicted any such outcome, even a few years ago. It’s more evidence of the “Black Swan” effect. Things we can’t even foresee, much less predict, continue to stump the best prognosticators.
No national energy policy that attempts to micro-manage all parts of our energy system will ever be nimble enough to respond to such changes. But a policy that allows all types of energy ideas to flourish—without massive tax breaks to any, but with appropriate environmental and health rules for all—can respond more quickly to unforeseen changes.
TransCanada’s announcement Monday is evidence of a private entity trying to respond nimbly to a changing situation and still make a sound decision for the use of its resources. The question now is whether the politicians in Washington and the states involved will allow that to occur.
Editorial:
———
STATE:
The Durango Herald, Feb. 22, on hiring of native-language teachers without full licensure requirements:
Colorado’s Native American culture is an important underpinning of the state’s identity, both in terms of the rich legacy past inhabitants have left as well as the tribal communities that thrive today. Language is a fundamental component of that culture, which spans many tribal populations in the state, and as such is an appropriate focus for state education efforts.
A measure passed by the Colorado Senate Education Committee earlier this month recognizes the importance of Native American languages, as well as the scarcity of teachers available to pass on that essential cultural heritage. Senate Bill 57 would allow school districts to hire fluent native-language speakers to teach their language without having to go through full teacher licensure requirements. Sponsored by state Sen. Suzanne Williams, D-Aurora, the measure would pair these native-language speakers with a licensed language teacher to ensure proper educational protocols are accounted for while encouraging a significant cultural connection.
Williams’ measure is modeled on similar programs in Hawaii and Montana, where students can receive credit for learning native languages in school, provided the classes meet district and state requirements. Denver Public Schools, which has a large Lakota population, has a similar program, as well. According to the Montana measure, just 34 percent of the nation’s 210 indigenous languages are being taught to children as first languages—a figure that has troubling implications for cultural awareness and education. Schools are an appropriate venue for working to counter that trend.
By extending the native-language offerings across the state, Southwest Colorado schools have an opportunity to emphasize for their students the region’s rich cultural heritage. Doing so would be particularly valuable for Southern Ute, Ute Mountain Ute and Navajo students who may not otherwise have access to their tribes’ language history. Williams’ measure would open the door for tribal elders who carry language knowledge, but not necessarily teaching credentials, to share with all students the history that language imparts. Doing so provides an opportunity for schools to broaden and deepen their students’ cultural experience and connection to an important part of the region’s identity.
By linking the native speakers with language teachers who meet traditional teaching requirements, SB 57 helps ensure that students’ classroom experience will meet the state’s standards for language education. Maintaining adequate academic rigor will be an important component of the measure’s successful implementation if it is approved, so that credit extended for the language courses is earned in keeping with state criteria. The teacher-partner model is a reasonable approach that recognizes both the importance of language education as well as the limited availability of native-language speakers among the state’s teachers.
Williams’ measure will be sponsored in the House by Rep. J. Paul Brown, R-Ignacio, and the benefits extend beyond the words that students will learn. Language is as much a communicator of culture as it is the thoughts and ideas of the speaker, and in teaching native languages, educators offer more than nouns and verbs. Senate Bill 57 can do much to build valuable connections between and among cultures, generations and students of different backgrounds. There is inestimable worth in that effort and all that it can yield. Williams and Brown should be commended for advocating the measure, and the Colorado Legislature should approve SB 57.
Editorial:
———
Loveland Daily Reporter-Herald, Feb. 27, on impacts of hydraulic fracturing:
To hear the partisans on either side talk about hydraulic fracturing, it is either the biggest threat to the well-being of residents in Northern Colorado and other areas where it is employed or it is the only way the region will be led out of the economic doldrums.
As is the case with many complex issues, the truth is in the middle—and with many unintended consequences still to shake themselves out of the system.
Hydraulic fracturing is a method that oil and gas producers use to increase yields or even bring played-out wells back to life. By pumping in a combination of water, sand and chemicals, producers can extract oil and gas that would otherwise be locked up in the sandstone, limestone and shale formations where the fuels are found.
Those increasing yields have created a surge of natural gas in the market, which has kept heating bills in check for most Colorado customers. It also has created an inexpensive fuel option for the operators of the Platte River Power Authority’s Rawhide plant in Northern Colorado, allowing residents of Loveland, Longmont, Fort Collins and Estes Park to maintain relatively low electricity rates.
Also, communities throughout Northern Colorado have been able to subsidize their water accounts by selling surplus amounts to the oil and gas producers at far higher rates than residential customers pay. This allows cities to work on their infrastructure without passing all of that cost to their current customers.
But with the good also comes the downsides of being in an energy development zone. Air and water quality issues have started to emerge at other locations where hydraulic fracturing is occurring. A study released last week shows that drilling work in Utah has created increased levels of surface-level ozone—similar to pollution found near well sites in the heart of the gas drilling areas of Wyoming. It does not take much imagination to see those same issues emerging in Northern Colorado, where ozone pollution has already been under scrutiny by federal regulators.
At the center of the hydraulic fracturing efforts, local and state regulators must remain vigilant about the quality of water drawn from nearby wells, as well. The fracturing could allow the existing natural gas an outlet to the surface or, distressingly, allow the fracturing chemicals an avenue for escape into the environment.
Even if you live many miles away from a wellhead, the increasing use of hydraulic fracturing in Northern Colorado is likely having an impact on your life in ways you might not know. It is incumbent on local leaders to recognize these impacts so that if the time comes for changes in regulation, all stakeholders have a seat at the table.
Editorial:
