ReportWire

Tag: opinion columnists

  • Opinion: Here’s why pursuing net-zero buildings — even in Aspen — isn’t practical or necessary

    Opinion: Here’s why pursuing net-zero buildings — even in Aspen — isn’t practical or necessary

    The company I work for recently built a new ticket office at the base of Buttermilk Mountain in Aspen, Colorado. Environmentally, we killed it: argon-gas-filled windows, super-thick insulation and comprehensive air sealing, 100% electrification using heat pumps instead of gas boilers. All within budget.

    Yet one of the first comments we received was from a famous energy guru: “Nice building. But why do you have a heating system at all?” Or more simply put: “Why didn’t you build a perfect building, instead of just a really good one?”

    Solving climate change could depend on how we answer that question. My answer: Society needs the Prius of buildings, not the Tesla X.

    The green building movement didn’t originate only from a desire to protect the environment. It often had elements of the bizarre ego gratification that trumped practicality.

    Recall “Earthships” that used old tires and aluminum cans in the walls. Geodesic domes were interesting looking but produced inordinate waste to build. They also leaked. Rudolf Steiner’s weirdly wonderful Goetheanum was an all-concrete structure designed to unite “what is spiritual in the human being to what is spiritual in the universe.”

    Early practitioners such as Steiner, Buckminster Fuller, and Bill McDonough, among others, were often building monuments, whose ultimate goal became the concept of “net zero.” Net zero was a building that released no carbon dioxide emissions at all.

    Designers achieved that goal by constructing well-sealed, heavily insulated, properly oriented, and controlled buildings–but then they did something wasteful. They added solar panels to make up for carbon dioxide emissions from heating with natural gas. The approach zeroed out emissions, but at extraordinary cost that came in the form of added labor, expense and lost opportunity.

    While net zero wasn’t a good idea even when most buildings were heated with natural gas, the rapid decarbonization of utility grids — happening almost everywhere — and advances in electrification make the idea downright pointless.

    Instead, all you need to build an eventual net zero building is to go all-electric. It won’t be net zero today, but it will be net zero when the grid reaches 100% carbon-free power. So, all that really matters is that building codes require 100% electrification.

    Yet many communities remain focused on that sexy goal of net zero, and therefore include requirements for solar panels, or “solar ready” wiring. Even apart from the issue of cost, many utilities don’t need rooftop solar because they increasingly have access to huge solar arrays, giving them more electricity than they need in peak times.

    What utilities really need is energy storage and smart management.

    That means home batteries and grid integration that allows utilities to “talk” to buildings and turn off appliances during peak times. The problem is that environmentalists haven’t evolved: Just like we can’t retire our tie-dyes, we think “green” means rooftop solar panels.

    My company’s Buttermilk building passes the only test that matters: “If everyone built this kind of structure, would it solve the built environment’s portion of the climate problem?” The answer for our building is “yes.”

    Still, aspirational monuments matter. We need the Lincoln Memorial, the Empire State Building. But if we’re going to solve climate change in buildings, which is about a third of the total problem, new structures will have to reconceive what we consider efficient and beautiful. And it doesn’t have to break the bank.

    Electrification, for example, is getting cheaper every year. Years ago, I served on an environmental board for the town of Carbondale in western Colorado. The overwhelming interest there was ending dandelion spraying in the town park. But at one point, we worked on a building.

    After a long conversation about the technical tricks and feats we could pull off, a Rudolf Steiner disciple named Farmer Jack Reed said: “We should also plant bulbs in the fall so colorful flowers blossom in the spring.” “Why?” I asked, stuck in my own technocratic hole. He said: “Because flowers are beautiful and they make people happy.”

    So, too, are realistic solutions as we adapt to climate change.

    Auden Schendler is a contributor to Writers on the Range, writersontherange.org, an independent nonprofit dedicated to spurring lively conversation about the West. He is senior vice president of sustainability at Aspen One. His book, Terrible Beauty: Reckoning with Climate Complicity and Rediscovering our Soul, comes out in November.

    Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

    To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

    Originally Published:

    Auden Schendler

    Source link

  • Opinion: Protesters came to our homes, with antisemitic chants to “globalize the intifada”

    Opinion: Protesters came to our homes, with antisemitic chants to “globalize the intifada”

    Having sniper-trained police in our neighborhoods to protect us and our homes was not anything we thought we would see when we were elected to the University of Colorado Board of Regents – an unpaid elected position.

    Yet, this was exactly what happened to both of us this month when a group of anti-Israel protesters came to both of our homes. We are extremely grateful to law enforcement for protecting us and our families, and we continue to be grateful to the many community members from all faiths and backgrounds who supported us during the protests at our home.

    Involving our families and our neighbors in protests at our homes is unacceptable, and is a tactic that we hope every leader, Democratic, Republican, or unaffiliated, can join in denouncing, as our colleagues on the CU Board of Regents did in a 9-0 vote.

    The agitators leading these protests say that the regents have not listened to or responded to them. They have been protesting on our campus since October, sharing their demands with multiple parties. They have come to CU Board of Regents meetings to speak in public sessions. They have emailed us.

    We have listened to them just as we do with any other group or individual. There is a difference between not listening and not agreeing. On May 16, 2024, the regents put out a statement that read, in part, “No regent is offering any policy changes in response to the demands.”

    As elected officials, we know all too well that you don’t demand things in a democracy. You make your arguments and hope people agree with you. We certainly hope we can all agree the amount of suffering happening in our world right now is unbearable. It is complex. It is unjust. Violence and pain inflicted upon babies, children, the elderly, and other innocent civilians is the worst of humanity.

    Criticism of Israel and/or of Hamas is acceptable and protected speech, and as regents, we encourage deep and complex debates about difficult topics because that is the role of an American university.

    A pro-Palestine demonstration continues on the Auraria Campus in Denver on April 29, 2024. (Photo by RJ Sangosti/The Denver Post)

    The decades-old Boycott, Divest and Sanctions (BDS) movement these protesters are part of, however, aims to dismantle the Jewish state and end the right to Jewish self-determination. The movement does not encourage people-to-people exchanges, dialogue opportunities, or interactions between those with opposing viewpoints.

    What we do not condone is purposely creating a dangerous environment for any student, staff, faculty – including Israelis and Palestinians, Jews and Muslims, Christians and Arabs and atheists–  or any other member of our community.

    At both Denver Pride last week and in front of our homes, people changed racist phrases like “From the River to the Sea,” which has been used to call for Jews to be exterminated from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. This is unacceptable.

    They were chanting “Globalize the Intifada” and “Resistance by any means necessary” – both racist calls for the murder and displacement of Jews throughout the world – in front of our homes. This is especially deplorable in front of the Spiegels’ home, an American Jewish family who are descendants of Holocaust survivors.

    Much of the commentary and sloganeering used by the protesters oversimplifies an ancient history of a land that is in no way comparable to the United States, South Africa, or any other nation. The binary story that is being told results in the spread of disinformation, incites hate, and perpetuates dangerous antisemitic tropes.

    Finally, the fact that the protestors use overt displays of support for internationally recognized terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah in conjunction with anti-Israel protests is also unacceptable.

    Ilana Spiegel, Callie Rennison

    Source link

  • Opinion: Opposition to online pet care is unrealistic and protectionist

    Opinion: Opposition to online pet care is unrealistic and protectionist

    In Colorado, we love our pets, so it’s personal when the care they need is out of reach.  A recent Colorado State University study found that veterinary care is unattainable for a third of pet owners.

    This is why a group of animal welfare advocates have come together to lead ballot initiatives 144 and 145. These measures will safely increase access to veterinary care in Colorado by expanding the use of telehealth and by introducing a career pathway for a master’s-level veterinary professional associate (VPA) position, similar to a physician assistant in human medicine.

    In a recent op-ed, state politician Karen McCormick, raised concerns about these two ballot initiatives. We are a group of veterinarians with a lifelong commitment to the well-being of animals and the community. We are leading this measure and feel compelled to offer our perspective on why these measures are crucial for the health of our pets. Initiatives 144 and 145 are critical steps to safely increasing veterinary care for pets in Colorado and addressing the dire shortage of veterinary professionals.

    Animal Health Economics estimates a shortage of nearly 15,000 veterinarians will exist in the U.S. by 2030, leaving as many as 75 million pets without veterinary care. This is largely the result of a veterinary workforce crisis. There are simply too few veterinary professionals to meet the demand. A study from the American Association of Veterinary Medical Colleges (AAVMC) found that there were 2,000-3,000 more open jobs than veterinarians available to hire.

    Ballot Initiative 144 increases access to veterinary telemedicine, allowing pet owners to create a new relationship with a veterinarian and receive care virtually when appropriate. This same model has been successful in human healthcare, and was passed nearly unanimously in Florida, Arizona and California last year. Rep. McCormick claims to have passed a bill (HB 24-1048) on behalf of the veterinary trade association as an “expansion” of tele-technologies. What she fails to share is that her bill eliminated options for many pet owners to access veterinary care virtually.

    Even Gov. Jared Polis stated his disappointment in this new restriction when the bill passed, saying he was concerned that it “creates additional impediments to veterinary care, especially in rural areas.” Initiative 144 repairs this damage and truly expands telehealth.

    Ballot Initiative 145 creates a career pathway for a veterinary “PA”. These professionals will have a master’s degree in veterinary clinical care and must work under the supervision of a licensed Colorado veterinarian. Initiative 145 requires robust training from a leading veterinary school in the country. It also empowers the State Board of Veterinary Medicine to create licensing and other regulatory requirements. Initiative 145 leads to increased capacity in veterinary clinics, particularly in rural communities, while driving down costs for pet owners.

    Apryl Steele, Missy Tasky, Jo Myers

    Source link

  • Opinion: Sirota’s ranked-choice voting amendment pushed back on monied interests

    Opinion: Sirota’s ranked-choice voting amendment pushed back on monied interests

    Thank you, Rep. Emily Sirota for ensuring that Colorado voters and county clerks are not overwhelmed with massive election changes that moneyed interests hope to foist on us through the ballot box this November.

    Sirota’s amendment to Senate Bill 210, an election reform bill, will ensure the rollout of ranked-choice voting, should it pass by voter initiative, will be implemented thoughtfully. The amendment, which passed unanimously, would require a dozen Colorado municipalities of varying sizes and demographics to conduct ranked-choice voting before it goes statewide.

    The phase-in will allow cities to develop best practices before all jurisdictions are required to implement a complicated and wholesale change. Just as mail-in voting was phased in over several years, the Sirota amendment will give clerks time to develop policies, purchase software, train employees, and educate their constituents.

    It also gives voters the opportunity to see how ranked choice voting works and gives them a chance to repeal it after the new car smell fades and they see how confusing and unfair it is. This election, Alaska voters are looking to repeal the ranked-choice voting system they approved just four years ago. They would have saved themselves a lot of money and frustration if the system had been implemented in a dozen jurisdictions instead of going all in from the start.

    A ranked-choice voting system for Colorado is being sought by the wealthy former CEO of DaVita, a Denver-based kidney dialysis provider, Kent Thiry. His proposal, which has been approved for signature collection,  would impose an open primary and ranked-choice general elections on the state.

    Here’s how it would work: Anyone, regardless of party affiliation, could run in the primary with the top four contenders advancing to the general election. In the general, voters would be asked to rank candidates in order of preference.

    It’s a confusing system, so I’ll put names to an example. Let’s say that out of a gubernatorial primary former Sen. Cory Gardner, current Sen. Michael Bennet, former Rep. Ken Buck, and Denver Mayor Mike Johnston advance to the general.

    I vote in the general for Bennet, Johnston, Buck, and Gardner in that order. If nobody gets 50% of the statewide vote, the votes are retallied. Let’s say that in the first tally, Bennet gets the least number of votes and is eliminated. Johnston, my second choice will get my vote. If Johnston is eliminated in round two, Buck will get my vote and either he or Gardner will emerge from the final round.

    In some elections, after all the tallying is done the most popular candidate (the one most voters ranked first) will go home empty-handed. In the 2010 Oakland mayoral race, the candidate who received the most votes in round one ultimately lost the election after nine rounds of vote redistribution. How fair is that to candidates or voters?

    If you’re confused, imagine how much effort, time, and money the Secretary of State and county clerks will have to expend to educate voters. It is likely the complexity will persuade some voters to chuck their ballot. Then there will be less voter participation.

    Being confusing isn’t the only problem with ranked-choice voting. Let’s say you picked only Johnston and Bennet and neither of them made it to the third round; your ballot will be considered exhausted and tossed out. Only those who voted for Buck and Gardner in whatever order, will be counted in the final tally.

    This has happened. In Maine’s 2nd Congressional District, the candidate who got the most votes ultimately lost to the second-place candidate. The Maine Secretary of State threw out more than 14,000 exhausted ballots from people who did not vote for the top two candidates. Sound fair?

    Proponents of ranked-choice voting think that such a system will reduce the number of extremist candidates and help voters coalesce around a mainstream candidate. This is a solution looking for a problem that isn’t a problem.

    Colorado does not have a problem with extreme candidates or officeholders. I did not vote for either of the state’s U.S. senators, my congressman, my representatives in the Colorado General Assembly, the governor, the attorney general, the secretary of state or the treasurer. While they are wrong on most issues, not one of them is extreme. Not one. Fanatics do come along but the current system is self-correcting.

    Extreme Democrats like Reps. Elisabeth Epps and Tim Hernández face formidable primary opponents this year and extreme Republicans like Ron Hanks and Dave Williams are unlikely to win in their primaries. Congresswoman Lauren Boebert had to flee her home district because voters yearned for normalcy and were poised to turn her out in the primary or general.

    While we’re popping illusion balloons, the Sirota Amendment was not some sneaky last-minute ploy. County clerks and the Colorado Clerks Association approached Sirota with the concerns they have about implementing the Thiry proposal if it passed and she listened. Matt Crane, executive director clerks association, told me that organization “strongly support[s] the amendment and appreciate[s] Rep. Sirota’s willingness to include it in the bill.”

    Krista Kafer

    Source link