I am a vocal advocate for environmental conservation, reusable energy, and moral obligations to maintaining resources... but Ritter's motivation seems to be influenced by the "Global Warming" band wagon.
I continue to place "global warming" in quotes because the "science" behind mans involvement in "global climate change" is shaky at best. There are several scientists who supported the theory at it's early conception, but after further review had failed to see any conclusive evidence that "global warming" is being propelled by human intervention.
Having reviewed Ritter's proposal, I would support a number of the ideas... increased personal responsibility, increased focus on alternative energy, and education of the populous on the perils of being poor environmental stewards... however, his plan of education and reduced carbon emissions have a central focus of "Global Warming"...
The debate about environmental conservation, energy independence, and clean air are being hampered by the debate over "global warming"... and to throw in an education plan that specifically teaches about the human cause of "global warming", well, for skeptics like myself, that is where we have to draw the line.
There should be a moral obligation to be good stewards of our environment, passed on by our families and communities... We should strive for alternative energy in a quest to further liberate ourselves from reliance on foreign oils and from reliance on big power industries... we should want to clean the air not because "global warming" threatens to flood our cities and destroy our future, but because we owe it to ourselves to live healthier lives under clean, clear skies.
Ritter's sweeping plan is an extension of the liberal agenda on "global warming", plain and simple.
Instead of working on environmental issues for the sake of moral obligation, the smattering of terms associated with "global warming" in it's focus on human fault are found in abundance in the document.
Though I credit ANY government official willing to champion the cause of energy independence, alternative fuels, and conservation... it all comes down to tact and intent. When you have to use inferred science to force policy, there is something wrong.
You should be able to pose a question to the community:
"Reducing particulate emissions because it will clean up Denver's air, is
it right or wrong?"
"Increasing funding for alternative energy incentives to reduce dependence
on oil, right or wrong?"
"Investing in personal sustainability in the area of energy, right or
Instead, what we get is:
"The world is going to flood, and we are going to be responsible for destroying
the earth for our children and the polar bears. Shame on us!"
So I have to give partial Kudos to Ritter...
But I also have to scold the Republicans for not effectively taking up the cause, and for allowing the liberals agenda to dominate, yet again, another important issue.
Republicans, remember, personal freedom and free market does not give a license to abuse the resources, or take without giving something back. With personal freedom comes moral obligations.
Do what's right.