COGCC GIS Online
Lenin statues falling down. . .
Lenin statues falling down,
Falling down, falling down,
Lenin statues falling down,
My Fair Lady. . .
Propane Stimulation by ecorpStim
the new normal
If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of “academic freedom”?
…I would happily organize with other feminists on campus to stop him from publishing…
People on the right opposed to boycotts can play the “freedom” game…
if we give up our obsessive reliance on the doctrine of academic freedom, we can consider more thoughtfully what is just.
The Doctrine of Academic Freedom
Let’s give up on academic freedom in favor of justice
All these tens of thousands of years humanity thrived on nothing more than a mere assumption of normalcy. How serendipitous! I expect heterosexuality is only one of many obsolete norms Komrad Korn would purge from our thoughts.
A Harvard education isn’t what it used to be.
A Socialism Spill on Aisle 9
A Socialism Spill on Aisle 9, by Daniel Greenfield
Progressives don’t particularly care about the woman in Aisle 9. They eat up hard luck stories on NPR and CNN the way that their great-grandparents marveled at hunger in Africa because of the way that it makes them feel, not because they understand how those people live or care about them. They use them to feel charitable and to win elections. Each progressive solution makes life worse in Aisle 9, but they never visit Aisle 9. If they did, they would outlaw the other half of the products in it that they haven’t already outlawed through various contrived legalisms.
Fracking Outrage Management
Fracking Risk Communication
by Peter M. Sandman
This paper by Peter Sandman breaks down the message mechanics of both the pro and anti fracking interests. By doing so Sandman outlines a paradigm whereby we can navigate – manage – the confrontations and polarized rhetoric heard in Elbert Country for the past 3 years, and impacted communities all over the world.
It is most refreshing to discover that the terms of the debate are not limited by, or adequately defined by, the extremists – and that solution vectors exist that can satisfy all stakeholders.
A Missed Chance For Epic Oil Deal
Nafta 20th Anniversary Summit A Wasted Opportunity For A North American Energy Pact
Elections alone will not defeat the left.
One Election Away from Losing Our Freedom, by Daniel Greenfield
If the Democratic Party continues to function as a radical leftist party, abiding by no laws, imposing radical change unilaterally, and using its media to cover for its corruption and political sins, the United States will face a Venezuelan or Egyptian scenario.
Every area of life is being politicized and this politicization did not take place as a result of elections and cannot be stopped with mere elections.
The totalitarians employ every cultural, political and economic element that they can against their enemies.
The electoral wars matter, but the totalitarians have to be fought for control of every institutions and defied at every point of control.
Supernatural progressive planning
Among the following choices, what would you rather have:
- A business that employs 40 people, or
- The potential for county tax revenues from a non-existent business.
How about:
- A business that employs 40 people in a plain looking industrial building, or
- A planning-approved nicely-landscaped and harmoniously-designed business building, that does not exist.
Or perhaps:
- A business that employs 400 people in an industrial activity, or
- A planning-approved industrial park with various support businesses built to serve a local working population, that does not exist.
Or how about:
- A residential community of starter homes and apartments, or
- A planning-approved planned unit development that protects rodent habitat, contains various support businesses to serve those residents, includes improvements to roads and schools for the expected demographic impacts from the full residential community, and none of it exists.
Elbert County’s Master Plan is built for a progressive community. A progressive community is a community in and of the future where everything harmoniously works in a sustainable balance forever after. A progressive community is relatively easy to visualize. Visualizations happen in the imagination, and the imagination has no limits.
The idea of a progressive community is easy to sell. Who wouldn’t want to live in such an idyllic place? And sell it they did. Planners built extensive laws and regulations to enforce a progressive outcome on us.
Unfortunately, reality doesn’t work the way planners visualize. Progress is an incremental process that incorporates unpredictable human adaptations that happen in the future and change how real things and places are used to maximize benefit to the humans living in that future.
Planners are not clairvoyant. They have no special gift for seeing future adaptations. But rather than recognize this human limitation, they build legal structures that limit options. These legal structures – zoning regulations – don’t enable the progressive outcome that planners intend.
They front-load progressive outcomes with a script of forced harmonious visualizations that must be satisfied, and that no one can afford.
Planners fail to see how the sustainable, working, efficient, human communities that already exist, came about through many years of trial and error – in a free environment that enabled men and women to try different things and discover the solutions that worked.
You can’t take that evolutionary element out of human development and jump to the finish. No one knows what our future communities will look like. No one knows how those future humans will use the space and resources available to them to maximize benefit to themselves and their children. No one can see an optimization 10 or 20 years from now. If such a human talent existed, there would be no war, no losses in the market, and no winners. It’s not in our nature to see those things. It’s not in the nature of any real being to see such things.
So what does this mean? Planners are trafficking in the supernatural, vainly writing legal fictions out of a fear of the unknown, and a presumption that free humans will produce the worst possible outcomes. Ironically, the same freedom that enabled humans to build the communities that planners think they can mandate into existence, is the freedom they fear most.
Planners fear freedom because it puts them out of a job. There is no higher principle at work here. Planning is no more than a rice-bowl protection racket for petty bureaucrats.
We need to stop enabling planners. We need to change zoning laws so that all of the #1s above happen, and the #2s, which today are the norm, become a bad memory.
It’s time we traded the progressive basket of expensive unrealistic visions for a functioning reality.
Zoning produced an economic dead zone in Elbert County. The experiment failed.
David Horowitz explains Alinsky and the Revolution
The Elbert County Free Press
It’s always a challenge to excerpt from Daniel Greenfield’s Sultan Knish writings because he rarely includes a sentence one could consider less meaningful than the rest. With that caveat, he writes today;
The voters who most depend on government vote to break it far more thoroughly than any Tea Party politicians could. No Republicans could have done to Detroit what Detroit did to Detroit. Not even the most extreme Tea Party politician could have done as much damage to the Federal government as Obama did.
Corruption and ineptitude are far more of a threat to the progressive vision than any number of people waving Gadsden flags. Republicans can shut down or slow a progressive program, but only progressives can discredit it from the inside[.]
Surely much of what I’ve held forth about the effect of Elbert County zoning falls neatly into this paradigm.
In a preface to Chapter 2 of Inventing Freedom, Daniel Hannan included a quote by Roger Scruton,
The English law existed not to control the individual but to free him.
Scruton has written books about environmentalism from a conservative approach, pointing out both the failures of statist solutions along with examples of successful environmental protection by vested owners of natural resources. He reminds us of the futility of dispossessing individuals of environmental ownership – call it regulation in America – along with an expectation that those same individuals will carefully husband that which they no longer control – a restatement of the tragedy of the commons.
Which brings us to New-Plains poster-boy Chris Bailey explaining, in effect, his view of law as the polar opposite of Scruton’s. He laments that the county laws and MOU passed this week were not what he wished for in “minor” facility O&G property control;
- He wanted the planning commission to retain approval authority for O&G development, despite their over 3 years of endless deliberations to get to square one of a passable law.
- He wanted the CDS director to have no authority to administrate O&G zoning, despite New-Plains’ love of former planning director Richard Miller.
- He wanted the dozen anti-O&G activists in Elbert County to retain the ability to stage public procedural delays, er, opportunities to scrutinize, O&G zoning administration.
- He wanted an un-flawed MOU, notwithstanding other regulatory conflicts and litigation such a document would have initiated.
- He wanted to make the O&G industry pay for the right to exploit their property.
In his zeal to uphold the collective Bailey doesn’t show much concern for individual property holders.
And let’s not forget the delusional Bishops at the Prairie Times this week. Susan and Jerry apparently told SOS Scott Gessler that,
Many conservatives were delighted by this judge’s ruling,
. . .in reference to the heavily Democrat partisan decision against Commissioner Rowland published last month.
Really? On what planet? Oh, that’s right, this one–the planet where Leftist Susan Bishop is still a Republican PCP.
One hopes that Republican caucus attendees take the opportunity afforded them in a couple weeks (March 4th) to relieve people like Susan of their conflict of interest, and excuse them from the ranks of the ECRCC.
As for the progressive tidal wave awash in America, with so many self-referential enforcement devices available to them, light at the end of the tunnel looks dim.
The Arroyo
This film from Bill Whittle’s production company Declaration Entertainment may not ever make it to a theater near you. But you can get The Arroyo from Amazon for less than you’d spend going to a theater anyway, and you should not wait to see it. Lives are on the line today.
colorful start to Saturday
Exporting Energy
2014 Caucus and County Assembly
Caucus is coming up on March 4th. Since the precincts were renumbered many Republicans will have to figure out their new caucus meeting locations. Caucus locations used to also be voting locations, but mail-in ballots have evidently made polling places obsolete, at least for the time being.
So, caucus meetings are the last remaining face-to-face official political event for the small minority of average voters who don’t operate the machineries of the political parties, but who like to get out one evening every two years and do something political.
After the last Colorado governor’s race and the guy who Republicans now dare-not-speak-his-name, the near loss of Republican majority party status in the state, the experience of being had by the Democrat “Blueprint,” and the effect of new-media sunshine in that at any instant a broadcast publication on social media could launch from any room, there’s definitely a caution in the air. Speakers are more careful about creating an inconvenient sound bite. Some seem less spontaneous and more scripted.
With the exposure of the Left’s Blueprint for Colorado and the revelation that large sums of money wait in the wings to exploit any spinnable factoid for political advantage, a certain amount of caution is warranted. A couple candidates are taking it to the point of closing off debate forums entirely, under the theory that the reality of their meaning will be spun by adverse political and media forces no matter what they say, so they’re just not going to say anything.
This represents an imposed caucus disempowerment. Caucuses can’t function without discussable content.
I’m sure that once the candidates get into true two-party debates and the playing field is levelled, political disclosures will come fast and furious from all sides.
Also, consider that the historical manipulability of candidate selections by caucus party insiders may have run its course to some extent. Technological evolution forces adaptations. If the cloaks and cloak rooms of the past no longer shelter participants from scrutiny, then those folks must adapt to operate in a new reality.
The right questions directed toward leadership can bring out some good analysis if the leaders are honest with themselves and with their audiences. Candor is always appreciated and I’m seeing much more of it. Those speakers uncomfortable with candor may stand out more. Must not make eye contact, must not. . . Too much! But it’s all good fun, at least until the polls close and you find out what harmful edicts the opposition will be shoving down your throat for the next two years. Hopefully the tide will turn this year and we won’t experience those revelations once again.
Elbert County Republicans have never advanced caucus resolutions to the state party for further action. Either they just never got around to it, or perhaps the resolutions were never sufficiently cleaned up to make them worth advancing. This year could be different.
Caucuses have a right to pass resolutions for consideration at the County Assembly on March 29th. In the past those resolutions have not been rationalized at the assembly. Conflicting resolutions were allowed to stand, and the whole resolutions business came at the end of the assembly day when everyone was tired and disinterested. The necessary assembly discussions did not occur.
This year, resolutions are scheduled for assembly discussion and approval, in detail, from 10:00 – 12:00 a.m., prior to commencement of the remaining assembly business. This opportunity should give Elbert County Republicans a chance to pass a set of harmonized, non-contradictory resolutions that can be sent up the party chain of command.
More importantly, out of this process, resolutions concerning local matters should carry more persuasive weight with county leadership.
If you don’t like how much of our local media constantly push an opposition agenda designed to shift debate to the left, the Republican caucus resolution process presents a great opportunity to voice some leadership direction to Elbert County in an authoritative manner. Republican caucus attendees, who show up to act in the capacity of representing the big majority of Elbert County voters, should bring that language to their caucuses. Don’t waste the opportunity! Make those resolutions persuasively, get them passed, debate them at the county assembly on the 29th, and give some real direction to this county.
Republicans can stop reacting to the leftist juggernaut and get out in front of it. We have the tools and we have the numbers, if we’d just use them.
Fracing legal and regulatory challenges in 2014
This is a refreshing analysis in its objectivity.
Fracing faces legal and regulatory challenges in 2014
02/01/2014
Wayne D’Angelo
Andrew McNamee
Kelley Drye & Warren
Washington, DCLast year was an eventful one for hydraulic fracturing. Use of the completion technology helped to dramatically boost US oil and gas production—tight oil production from the Bakken and Eagle Ford formations alone increased by 700,000 b/d during the year, and gas production from the Marcellus shale jumped to 13.5 bcfd.
Alongside this historic production growth came employment growth, a resurgence of domestic energy-dependent and energy-intensive industries, and historic energy-driven declines in the US trade deficit. While domestic development and industrial activity increased dramatically in 2013, the increased use of natural gas helped lower the carbon footprint of the US below standards set by the Kyoto accords that were previously considered unattainable by many.
Notwithstanding these economic and environmental benefits, 2013 was also an eventful year for hydraulic fracturing legislation, regulation, and litigation. The federal government continued to pursue regulation on federal lands and for air emissions, while various environmental groups continued to petition for even more regulation.
Numerous states, like Wyoming, North Dakota, and Alaska, continued to update their hydraulic fracturing regulations while other states, like Illinois, passed sweeping new regulations. State ballot measures restricting the use of the completion technique were passed in several Colorado municipalities (Boulder, Broomfield, Fort Collins, and LaFayette) but were rejected in a pair of Ohio municipalities (Bowling Green and Youngstown). Other municipal preemption actions were litigated in New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and elsewhere. New infrastructure was proposed to bring the rising oil and gas produced from unconventional reservoirs to market, and many of these proposals met challenges from environmental groups. The first applications for LNG export were approved by the Department of Energy, and a discussion of the potential for crude oil exports was started for the first time in decades. Legislation of all kinds was proposed in Congress and in state houses across the country—particularly in California.
Given 2013’s widespread and transformative changes, it is difficult to predict precisely what 2014 will bring. It is, however, possible to identify some of the key regulatory and legal issues facing the hydraulic fracturing industry—and the states where those issues principally will play out in 2014.
Municipal preemption
The ability of localities to regulate (and ban) oil and gas development is a hotly debated issue. State regulators generally favor implementation of comprehensive statewide regulations. Industry similarly prefers compliance with a single regulatory structure versus a patchwork of local regulations. Some municipal and environmental groups, however, believe that oil and gas development is inherently dirty and dangerous—particularly when hydraulic fracturing is utilized. As such, these groups are increasingly challenging portions of state oil and gas law that preempt local regulations banning hydrocarbon development. In the final days of 2013, Pennsylvania’s highest court sided with a handful of municipalities and struck down portions of the Commonwealth’s oil and gas law, Act 13, which preempted municipal regulations from constraining oil and gas development. This decision set the stage in 2014 for a continuing fight in Pennsylvania, and similar preemption debates in other states such as Colorado, Ohio, and New York.
In 2014, we expect the Pennsylvania decision to be cited extensively, though perhaps not always effectively, by preemption litigants in other states. State court decisions may be persuasive but are not legally binding on other states. Further, the Pennsylvania decision was based on particular language in Act 13, the Commonwealth’s Constitution, and a nuanced application of the seldom cited “public trust doctrine.” Courts looking at the preemption issue in other states will need to examine, and base their decisions on, their own state laws—perhaps with very different results. At the same time, lawmakers in other states that are interested in preserving uniform state oil and gas laws will use the Pennsylvania decision to ensure their preemption language is as strong as possible to avoid a successful municipal challenge.
Chief among the preemption actions to watch in 2014 is the fight between the city of Munroe Falls and the state of Ohio over whether Munroe Falls can ban drilling on private property in city limits. Ohio’s oil and gas law has some of the strongest preemption language in the country and has already been upheld by an Ohio appellate court. Munroe Falls’ appeal will be heard by the Ohio Supreme Court this spring.
Methane regulation
In November 2013, Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper’s (D) administration proposed the nation’s first state regulation of methane emissions from oil and gas operations. Methane, a greenhouse gas, is already controlled federally under the Clean Air Act, and Colorado’s proposal to add state regulation of methane emissions is unique.
While some in industry have welcomed the proposed regulations, others have expressed concern about the costs of the detection and control systems, the futility of regulating global climate change on a single-state level, and the need to inflexibly force specific controls on companies that already have financial incentives to capture methane. It remains to be seen whether Colorado will create a regulatory precedent that can be adopted in other states or will overstep the bounds of state regulation. The rulemaking process for this proposal will be among the most closely watched in 2014.
New York ban
New York state’s ban on high volume hydraulic fracturing will enter its sixth year in 2014. The New York ban is the most closely watched in the country because of its duration and because, unlike other states with bans, New York is sitting on a great deal of shale gas.
While the long-awaited decision by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) to either extend or lift the state’s de facto moratorium on hydraulic fracturing is supposed to be made in 2014, the same was said in 2013—and 2012. The fate of hydraulic fracturing continues to be postponed until the state health commissioner completes a seemingly boundless review of the potential health implications of hydraulic fracturing.
In November 2013, Gov. Cuomo affirmed that he expected the health study to be completed before his November 2014 gubernatorial election. However, in December 2013, he hedged that he would continue to defer to the health commissioner’s deadline. Predicting the fate of hydraulic fracturing in New York is always difficult. In an election year, it is impossible. At best, we can predict that, in 2014, New York will remain a key focal point of the highly visible and increasingly passionate debate over America’s domestic energy future.
The authors
Wayne D’Angelo is special counsel in the Energy Practice at Kelley Drye & Warren and Andrew McNamee is a government relations professional at the agency. Kelley Drye’s regulatory team helps companies navigate environmental and regulatory pressures faced by the energy industry. The agency’s government relations team has experience representing conventional and alternative energy producers, as well as retailers and energy consumers in a variety of industries. The agency has presented a broad range of energy policy matters before Congress and the executive branch for a variety of clients, including large oil and gas companies, a coalition of start-up renewable energy producers, and energy-intensive manufacturers.
Bruce S. Thornton
The Costs of the Environmentalism Cult
The central mistake of the romantic environmentalist is to gloss over the profound differences between human beings and the natural world. We are not “natural” creatures. What makes us human is everything that exists nowhere else in the natural world: the mind, language, consciousness, memory, higher emotions, and culture. None of these exist even in the highest primates. Apes do not craft tools, marry, name their offspring, bury their dead, live by laws or customs, or respect inalienable rights. This radical uniqueness of human identity means that we do not have a “harmonious” relationship with nature, but an adversarial and conflicted one. The natural world is the alien, inhuman realm of blind force, indifferent to suffering, death, and beauty. It is meaningless, for only humans bestow meaning on the world. And that meaning reflects our knowledge that each of us is unique, a creature that appears only once, and that each of us must die.
Most important, unlike everything else in the natural world ruled by necessity, humans are free. As French critic Luc Ferry writes, “Man is free enough to die of freedom.” And from that freedom comes morality, all the things we are obligated to do or not do, particularly in regard to our fellow humans. The nexus of consciousness of our individual uniqueness and necessary death, our freedom to choose to act against nature’s determinism, and our moral obligations to one another is what makes us unnatural––and human. Nature is our home only by dint of our alteration of it to make it suitable for such creatures, and that process is one of conflict and struggle against the brutal forces of extinction and destruction that have characterized the natural world for the 3.6 billion years life has existed.
The unnatural uniqueness of humans makes talk of “harmony” with nature the Disneyesque fantasy of rich people protected from nature’s cruelty by a high-tech civilization. Thus the proper view of nature should be how do we interact with our world and use its resources in order to benefit the greatest number of humans today, and to ensure that those who come after us have the resources to live well. Every environmental policy should start with that assumption. And we should determine the goods we want from nature––from economic development to the preservation of natural beauty––through the democratic process, not by the diktats of self-selected elites who mask their preferences as science rather than taste, and enlist the coercive power of the federal government to impose those subjective preferences at the expense of the well-being of everybody else.
As it is today, the biggest beneficiaries of our civilization indulge a sentimentalized nature love the cost of which is borne by others. They attack the technology and the free-market economic system that have created the unprecedented wealth, comfort, and leisure that they take for granted, but that their policies deny to others less privileged. The irrationalism and hypocrisy of modern environmentalism is a “black-market religion,” as Chantal Delsol puts it, a feel-good cult that makes its adherents feel superior to the grubby masses and the corporate barbarians who create the wealth and products that make their existence possible. Meanwhile jobs are not created, economic growth is burdened by costly regulations, and our national interests are compromised by the failure to exploit our country’s resources. That’s too high a price to pay just so some people can enjoy a pleasing fantasy.
deja vu
As U.S. Weakness Leads To Global Rearmament, Can War Be Far Behind?
The Law Of The Land
In Inventing Freedom, Daniel Hannon writes, “English-speaking peoples still commonly, and exceptionally, talk of “the law of the land.” Not the King’s law, not God’s law, but the law of the land–a set of rights and obligations immanent in the country, growing incrementally, passed down as part of the patrimony of each new generation.”
As President Obama continues to demonstrate, the Left do not hold the law of the land in the high regard traditionally upheld by “English-speaking peoples.” Conservative writers and speakers chronicle this feature of our new age on a daily basis, and mentioning it here has earned this writer a variety of libels–short of using the blood of Leftist babies to make matzah balls, though the day is still young.
Anyway, with due respect to the objectives of the Left with regard to Elbert County oil & gas development, I find their chosen tactic – to cause local zoning operational conflicts with COGCC – legally insufficient. It is my 1st Am. right to make the finding and to publish it.
Over the years I’ve documented in these pages evidence of a Leftist policy to push Elbert County into expensive litigation over oil & gas regulation, and county vs. states rights. I maintain that the county cannot afford that expensive litigation, and I applaud the BOCC for avoiding it thus far.
Rather than address the substance of my analysis, the Left comes back with libel on the front end, and politicking out the back door. The Left continue to push for operationally conflicting local regulation and they just don’t care about the legalities.
The Sierra Club recently entered the Elbert County oil & gas political arena by sponsoring a letter containing the following language:
Elbert County needs strong oil and gas regulations to protect our air, water, land, public health, safety, and quality of life. We are asking you to protect Elbert County residents by adopting regulations which would prohibit open pits for toxic produced water and prohibit spraying of toxic produced water to mitigate dust on county roads.
We also urge you to support citizen-drafted MOUs which would protect Elbert County citizens by increasing drilling set-backs to 1320 feet from homes, require green completion systems to reduce air emissions, require operators to notify residents within a mile of production activities, and increase baseline water sampling.
Please do everything in your power to ensure that Elbert County residents and their property are protected from the toxic spills, groundwater contamination, ozone-inducing emissions and other impacts that the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission has documented. The industry averages more that a spill per day across Colorado and has been found to be responsible for more than half of the ozone pollution causing federal air quality violations in nine Front Range counties. A recent Colorado School of Public Heath study found an increase in the incidence of congenital heart defects within 10 miles of drilling operations.
You have a duty to protect Elbert County from these impacts and risks and we are relying on you to do so.
Thank you for your consideration.
Well, the President may be able to walk all over Congress and get away with blatant constitutional violations, but Elbert County need not follow his “leadership.” The duty of the BOCC runs first to the law of the land, and I am relying on the BOCC to not break that trust. Under our system, the ends don’t justify the means.
If the Left cannot abide that framework, there are plenty of totalitarians in the world who would be glad to have them as subjects.