Skip to main content

Climate Change Regulations on the Economy


Climate Change Regulations on the Economy
We are starting to see the effects of climate change all around the globe, but Colorado legislature is
starting to take focus of it. Some of the various negative effects that will occur because of the changing
climate in Colorado include the decline in water availability for agricultural purposes and a higher risk
of wildfires. However, there are legislatures in Colorado that avoid drafting laws that deal with climate
change because this state relies heavily on the oil and gas industry for tax revenue. 
Scientists and engineers have come up with solutions to reduce our carbon footprint in ways
such as electric vehicles or wind and solar energy efficient inventions. The problem is these are
expensive. I would love to be driving a Tesla instead of my 2005 Honda Pilot, but I don’t have the
money for that, same with most Americans. The same goes for healthier food options, they are more
costly. Farmers markets are better for the environment because instead of trucks traveling across the
country to deliver food to grocery stores, local vendors can just drive across the street and set up stands.
However, fresh food is higher priced than canned foods and other unhealthy choices, and it also loses
its viridity faster, contributing to food waste in America. Climate change is a ‘rich person's problem’
because most Americans are worried about paying off their mortgages or utility bills, not ways they
impact the earth. I believe global warming should be a priority for our government, but it seems
unrealistic to assume Americans are going to drastically change their ways unless someone comes up
with a cheaper mass produced invention to reduce carbon emissions. We can’t go back in time to a
world where there’s no cars on the road, so let's make more affordable electric cars. Or find a way to
store solar energy. Everybody should be focusing on solutions that would fit our current society
because most Americans won’t go out of their way to save the environment. 
Democratic lawmakers in Colorado are pushing for discussion about climate change this session.
Their current solution is to enforce stricter regulations for oil and gas sites, but that could affect
Colorado’s revenue significantly. The Denver Post states that oil and gas in Colorado generates over
$1 billion in taxes each year and account “for over 89,000 direct and indirect jobs.” I reiterate that
Colorado needs to come up with a cost effective solution that doesn’t contribute to such a dramatic
loss in jobs if stricter laws were enforced. Democratic legislatures at the state level are trying to push
power toward local government authorities to decide what the future of drilling operations look like
for their town. “Republicans want to roll back the government’s authority to restrict the actions of
private citizens and landowners, while Democrats want to update the law’s language and protections
to better account for new scientific findings regarding climate change” (Straayer, 275). Here is another
example of a common clash between Democrats and Republicans concerning a problem that we all
face. Proposition 112 “which sought to keep 2,500 feet between new oil and gas operations and any
home in Colorado” was voted down 57% to 43% (Jaffe, 2018). However, “the oil and gas industry spent
more than $40 million to oppose 112” (Colorado Sun, 2018). The industry is nervous because as
soon as laws shift towards limiting oil and gas production, there is no turning back. Lawmakers are
going to try next year to get it passed and now that climate change has become more of a topic of
conversation, Democrats have a higher chance. Proposition 112 is essentially a ban on the oil industry
because if it passed, “about 85% of the state-owned and private land in Colorado would be off limits
to drill rigs...the measure would put about 34,000 oil and gas industry jobs at risk” (Jaffe, 2018).
That is a significant amount of jobs that Colorado cannot afford to lose, especially in smaller towns
such as Erie, Broomfield, and Lafayette. Colorado’s Democratic controlled Senate passed a reform
bill back in April of this year that “prioritizes the protection of public safety, health, welfare, and the
environment in the regulation of the oil and gas industry by modifying the oil and gas statutes and
hands more regulatory authority to local governments” (Colorado General Assembly, 2019). Colorado
is unique compared to other states because of its diverse geography that contains multiple open
terrains, a dream for oil and gas companies. Colorado is also home to Weld County, which is not only
the fourth largest oil field in the U.S., but also provides 90% of Colorado’s crude oil production.
“In 2018, oil and gas production contributed $490 million in tax revenue, about 60 percent of overall
tax dollars for Weld”. In other words, a majority of Weld County’s revenue comes from oil, so the
reform bill that was passed in April could work in Weld’s favor if local council chooses not to change
any laws. Although not every city is like Weld in terms of production, there has been a dramatic
increase in oil and gas production in Colorado since 2000. Even though Governor Jared Polis believes
that climate change is an extreme threat, oil and gas production in Colorado has never been higher
(shown below).
This graph should show that however local government decide to handle new restrictions, it could
severely affect Colorado’s revenue in a negative way unless they propose a new solution. 
In theory, climate change should not be a partisan issue because all of us only get this one
planet to live on, yet it is still a politically split matter. Colorado’s political agenda also reflects what
is happening in D.C. and the current administration has halted progress towards a cleaner earth.
Presidents that are concerned about treaties not passing in Congress, can go over the head of the Senate
and sign executive agreements with other countries. The Obama administration used this loophole to
sign the Iran Nuclear Accord an the Paris Climate Agreement (Straayer, 333). However, Obama’s
approach worked during his Presidency, but in effect, cleared a path for President Trump to withdraw
from both of those agreements. Because most Americans turn their heads towards national news,
Trump’s decision pushed those were undecided about whether climate change should be prioritized
over the economy, further back.
The anger that some people feel towards legislation that supports stricter regulations on oil and gas
companies comes from a place of fear. Fear that they will lose their job and that the price of their
primary source of energy will increase undoubtedly. People don’t like change and these are changes
that nobody knows the true outcome yet, good or bad. Economists and scientists will spend the rest
of their lives running tests to provide evidence for governments so they can make the most informed
decisions and citizens will hold them accountable.  Everybody should be worried about our earth and
the effect of climate change. I see the only way to get everybody on board is if there was a less
expensive, more energy efficient, job providing, economic boosting, invention. Easy right?





Works Cited

Hood, Grace. “Weld County Wonders What's Next For Colorado's Oil And Gas Reform.” Colorado Public Radio, Colorado Public Radio, 1 July 2019, www.cpr.org/2019/04/16/weld-county-wonders-whats-next-for-colorados-oil-and-gas-reform/.

“U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis.” Colorado - State Energy Profile Analysis - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), 2019, www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=CO.

Woodruff, Chase. “How Colorado Towns Are Starting to Use Their ‘Local Control’ of Fracking.” Westword, 4, 5 July 2019, www.westword.com/news/how-colorado-towns-are-starting-to-use-local-control-of-fracking-11399130.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Two-Party System: Possible Impacts on Polarization & Congressional Policy Making

Edward Baisley Prof. Matthew Hitt POLS 304 16 Oct. 2019 Blog Post 2 (Two Party System)             The two-party system in the United States of America has been an integral part of our political culture since the country’s inception in the 1700’s. Since then, our country has accepted this system as an inevitable part of how our nation’s leaders are chosen, nominated, and elected into office. Now days, when it comes to our contemporary national congress, both parties have spent an incredible amount of money and resources in an attempt to seize majority control in both the House and the Senate. This attempt to seize majority power in our legislative branch has led to a situation of heated competition. In fact, in recent history, we as citizens of this nation have seen our national Legislator become a partisan battle ground in which both parties and their members are seemingly polarized to an extent that the ...

TABOR and Colorado Politics Post-CC

       One of the more contentious topics within Colorado politics is budgeting and funding for projects, education, and revenue intake. This came to a head in this year's election with Proposition CC. Despite failing at the ballot box, the Democratic Party is pushing ahead with the 2020 legislative agenda that includes drafts to eliminate the Tax Payer's Bill of Rights or amend it to ensure more accessible revenue for the party's policy objectives. What is critical to the debate is the increasing partisan divide within Colorado, the historical shift from Republican control to Democrat trifectas in state government, and the institutional mechanisms that have hampered strategy for the dominant party. Also, in the mix are interest groups that influence local politics which can help uncover party strategy from another perspective.        The Colorado Fiscal Institute (CFI) a left-leaning think tank, is a key player in this battle, authoring s everal...

Insulin cap in Colorado

In the United States, the topic of medication prices has increased substantially, specifically insulin. Insulin is a medication used to treat type one Diabetes which typically costs a thousand dollars or more depending on how much you need, and how much your insurance is willing to pay. Colorado changed this with a bill designed to put a cap on the copay for insulin. The bill HB19-1216 was signed into law by Governor Jared Polis in May of 2019. This bill states that “a carrier that provides coverage for prescription insulin drugs pursuant to the terms of a health coverage plan the carrier offers shall cap the total amount that a covered person is required to pay for a covered prescription insulin drug at an amount not to exceed one hundred dollars per thirty-day supply of insulin, regardless of the amount of type of insulin needed to fill the covered person’s prescription.” This bill will go into effect on January 1st, 2020 and will be overseen by the department of law who will investi...