Siggie. I tend to read the words as they are written. Apologies.
I agree with you (I think) that this is a discussion about balance.
All of the hyperventilating about "government overreach" in the gun debate doesn't really match reality. There are people out there, quite a few of them in fact, who want these gun laws and just because some people consider the laws an apostasy doesn't necessarily make them so.
Some people think that it violates their rights that they can't shout obscenities at their neighbors, too.
Prod, I believe you took my comment too literally. You said it in your response. The constitution places restrictions on government so that government cannot (or should I say 'should not') place onerous restrictions on the citizens. The question before us is exactly that. Is the government attempting to over-reach in assuming power and restricting the rights of the citizens. Guns are just one example. Our rights, which have been eroding for years as the federal government gets bigger and more powerful, are currently being trampled at an alarming pace.
Come on, Siggie. You're smarter than that. The Constitution places limitations upon the government, not the people. It doesn't nullify the will of the people.
People want restrictions on free speech, so we have them. And so far, we've done a decent job balancing that right with the responsibilities that go with it.
To say that the Constitution places regulations on gun ownership is dead wrong -- to prevents the government from violating this inherent right.
And, by the way, none of these gun bills violate our rights. We can still own guns, lots of them, in all their fun shapes and sizes and colors.
What these bills do is try to balance that right with the need for public safety.
No one in their right mind should object to the current concealed carry rules and back grounds checks for gun purchases...and registering guns, even ballistic tests on file simply protects us all, including the gun owner who is able to prove he sold a gun, is properly trained to handle a gun, and encouraged to be careful about shooting anyone with it.
Morse went to far...and is sort of nutty anyhow...and as a former cop doesn't help their impression of sanity. He blew it...and he needs to be locked figuratively away as he did to so many literally.
Hey prod: It does have some form of regulation. It is called the Constitution of the United States. Just because you want to disregard it when convenient, does not mean it is not there and applicable.
I just have to look at the polling, which is extensive, to see that the vast majority of Americans believe that gun ownership requires some form of regulation.
Your argument that kids aren't polled is bizarre. And to assume that all gun owners agree with your point of view shows how little you pay attention to the debate at large.
Large-capacity magazine bans and universal background checks do have the support of the majority of Americans.
Hey happy - "spewing" is that a new word for you? I bet that is something you do right after you teabag. You little pervert!
Tom Jackson - why are YOU waging a war on women? On Coloradoans?
You apparently support Morse who wants to make women victims of any criminal who wants to attack them. Without a gun for self defense, women are vulnerable. Please don't state they should just call the police. It takes a car 8-15 minutes MINIMUM to get to a home when a call for help comes in. In that time the woman and possibly her children could be raped, sodomized, beaten and killed.
Then look at the military who have fought to keep our country safe. One vet I know had his arm blown off in Afghanistan. He has a hard time getting magazines into his gun to defend his family and himself. If he is limited to 15 round magazines which Morse and the other idiots in the state legislature voted in, but the perps have 30, he will lose.
So don't tell us that YOU are for Coloradoans and a safe and sane city. YOU are as much a danger to this society as Morse is and that is why he is being recalled. Instead go read John Lotts book, MORE GUNS, LESS CRIME and try to disprove his FACTS which you can't because his research and history has proven that an armed society is a polite society.
El producto - Your statement: The majority of Americans support a ban on high-capacity magazines and universal background checks shows that you do absolutely nothing but repeat the Democratic talking points. There is NOTHING To support that statement! You make yourself look foolish for saying so.
There are over 100 million gun owners in the United States. There are about that many young ones who don't know, don't care, or whom haven't been polled in this matter, so that is 200 million who don't support your talking point above.
Instead of being ignorant and spouting nonsense, go read MORE GUNS, LESS CRIME by John Lott. He has proven with exhaustive research that crime goes down when guns come up.
Those are FACTS and you cannot disprove them! So do us a favor and get some education before you post nonsense like you did above.
quite an anti-Morse spewing! must be a repubican because your argument boils down to scare the women and old farts. the gunut sheriff's are the one who brought about the lawsuit, so are responsible for the costs... just like this entire recall, a enormous waste of taxpayers money. the majority of people want gun safety measures and the recall will be defeated by rational people thinking rationally... not by fear based arguments.
Why do we also have to JUMP off the cliff, others already have!
Benny Peiser: Europe Pulls The Plug On Its Green Future
Benny Peiser, The Australian
As country after country abandons, curtails or reneges on once-generous support for renewable energy, Europe is beginning to realise that its green energy strategy is dying on the vine. Green dreams are giving way to hard economic realities.
Solar panels in Spain, where 50,000 solar panels entrepreneurs face financial disaster following cuts in government subsidies.Source: AFP
Slowly but gradually, Europe is awakening to a green energy crisis, an economic and political debacle that is entirely self-inflicted.
The mainstream media, which used to encourage the renewables push enthusiastically, is beginning to sober up too. With more and more cracks beginning to appear, many newspapers are returning to their proper role as the fourth estate, exposing the pitfalls of Europe’s green-energy gamble and opening their pages for thorough analysis and debate. Today, European media is full of news and commentary about the problems of an ill-conceived strategy that is becoming increasingly shaky and divisive.
A study by British public relations consultancy CCGroup analysed 138 articles about renewables published during July last year in the five most widely circulated British national newspapers: The Sun, The Times, The Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail and Daily Mirror, which enjoy a combined daily circulation of about 6.5 million.
“The analysis revealed a number of trends in the reporting of renewable energy news,” the study found. “First and foremost, the temperature of the media’s sentiment toward the renewables industry is cold. More than 51 per cent of the 138 articles analysed were either negative or very negative toward the industry.”
More than 80 per cent of the articles appeared in broadsheet titles The Times, The Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail, the report says, “but 55 per cent of these articles were either negative or very negative about the industry”.
EU members states have spent about €600 billion ($882bn) on renewable energy projects since 2005, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Germany’s green energy transition alone may cost consumers up to €1 trillion by 2030, the German government recently warned.
These hundreds of billions are being paid by ordinary families and small and medium-sized businesses in what is undoubtedly one of the biggest wealth transfers from poor to rich in modern European history. Rising energy bills are dampening consumers’ spending, a poisonous development for a Continent struggling with a severe economic and financial crisis.
The German Association of Energy Consumers estimates that up to 800,000 Germans have had their power cut off because they couldn’t pay the country’s rising electricity bills; among them, German newspaper Der Spiegel reported last October, are 200,000 long-term unemployed.
As The Washington Post writer Charles Lane observed at the time: “It’s one thing to lose your job because a competing firm built a superior mouse trap; it’s quite another, justice-wise, to lose it because a competitor talked the government into taking its side.”
Two weeks ago, the Czech government decided to end all subsidies for new renewable energy projects at the end of this year. “The reason for this law amendment is the rising financial burden for electricity consumers,” Prime Minister Jiri Rusnok said. “It threatens the competitiveness of our industry and raises consumers’ uncertainty about power prices.” In recent years, almost all EU member states also have begun the process of rolling back and cutting green subsidies.
Spain is a particularly cautionary tale. By failing to control the cost of guaranteed subsidies, the country has been saddled with €126bn of obligations to renewable-energy investors.
Now that the Spanish government has dramatically curtailed these subsidies, even retrospectively, more than 50,000 solar entrepreneurs face financial disaster and bankruptcy.
Germany, however, is the nation that has pushed the renewables agenda furthest and is struggling most with the unintended damage of the green energy shift, its so-called Energiewende.
Germany’s renewable energy levy, which subsidises green energy production, rose from €14bn to €20bn in just one year as a result of the fierce expansion of wind and solar power projects. Since the introduction of the levy in 2000, the electricity bill of German consumers has doubled.
German households will pay a renewables surcharge of €7.2bn this year alone. In addition, consumers will be affected by indirect costs because industry, trade and commerce pass on their rising energy costs in product prices. And because green energy subsidies are guaranteed for 20 years, the costs threaten to rise exorbitantly as more schemes are being agreed. Energy bills are going through the roof, fuel poverty is rising and renewable energy policies face a growing public backlash. What is more, governments are increasingly concerned about the threat to Europe’s industrial base.
Germany has the most expensive electricity in Europe, with an average price of 26.8 euro cents (40c) a kilowatt hour. No wonder Chancellor Angela Merkel has warned that the rapid expansion of green energy programs is weakening Germany’s competitive advantage in the global economy.
The EU also is quietly rolling back its renewable agenda, which EU leaders now recognise has been raising energy prices across the Continent. At their summit in Brussels in May, leaders indicated that they intended to prioritise the issue of affordable energy over cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
The EU summit signalled Europe intended to restore its declining competitiveness by supporting the development of cheap energy, including shale gas, while cutting green energy subsidies.
However, EU environment ministers are alarmed at the prospective rollback. They are seeking to prevent the development of EU shale resources by trying to introduce EU-wide environmental barriers.
Until recently, Europe had positioned itself as the global leader in climate protection and renewable energy, with Germany leading the way with ambitious targets and generous subsidies that boosted solar power and wind energy.
More than half of the world’s solar panels are installed in Germany. On June 6, Germany’s solar power production touched a new record of 23.4 gigawatts, meeting almost 40 per cent of the country’s entire peak electricity demand. But to understand that this record is quite meaningless, consider the grid’s narrow escape last winter. For many weeks in December and January, Germany’s 1.1 million solar power systems generated almost no electricity. During much of those overcast winter months, solar panels more or less stopped generating electricity. To prevent blackouts, grid operators had to import nuclear energy from France and the Czech Republic and power up an old oil-fired power plant in Austria.
Subsidies are extremely generous and guarantee investors an almost 10 per cent annual return for 20 years. Given such an unparalleled offer, it is not surprising that more than a million families already have installed solar panels. This solar boom, however, has saddled the country with obligations of more than €130bn in subsidies, leading to ever increasing energy prices.
As wealthy homeowners and businesses owners install solar panels on their homes and commercial buildings, low-income families, living in rented apartments, have to foot skyrocketing electric bills. Many can no longer afford to pay, so the utilities are cutting off their power.
To stop the solar boom, the government has reduced feed-in tariffs for photovoltaic schemes in the past few years. Since 2010, however, more than 5000 companies involved in the solar business have closed, shedding tens of thousands of green jobs.
Germany’s biggest companies, such as Siemens and Bosch, are abandoning the industry too. Their renewable energy strategies resulted in costly debacles. Siemens, Europe’s largest engineering company, announced in June that it would close its entire solar division, at a loss of about €1bn. Last month the Siemens board fired its chief executive, Peter Loescher. His dramatic dumping was seen in the context of a catalogue of disastrous misinvestments in the green energy sector he presided over.
For Bosch, another German giant, its move into solar ended in disaster too, costing the electronics company even more than Siemens: about €2.4bn.
During the past year, the wave of bankruptcies in solar has devastated the entire industry, while solar investors have lost almost €25bn on the stockmarket.
Now Germany plans to phase out subsidies altogether, its solar industry is likely to disappear by the end of the decade.
Most observers were convinced the energy gap caused by Germany’s decision, two years ago, to phase out nuclear power would be filled by wind and solar power. Hardly anyone realised that the extraordinary boom in renewable energy construction would generate a coal boom too.
In fact, German CO2 emissions have been rising for two years in a row as coal is experiencing a renaissance. But CO2 emissions in the EU as a whole are likely to rise because of increased coal burning at power stations. The revelation has embarrassed the German government and dumbfounded the public, which cannot understand how a nation that has expanded renewable energy more than any other country is building 20 coal-fired power stations.
In much of Europe, coal has become much cheaper than natural gas for power generators. The reason is the collapse of the EU’s emissions trading scheme and the subsequent decline in carbon prices, which make coal plants more economical than gas-fired power plants.
So far Europe’s emissions trading scheme has cost consumers more than €300bn. Massive amounts of green investments originally projected on the back of a high carbon price have been shelved and are no longer feasible. There can be little doubt Europe’s flagship climate policy has turned into an utter failure. In a realistic assessment of Europe’s policy shift, the International Energy Agency recently noted that “climate change has quite frankly slipped to the backburner of policy priorities”.
Of all the unintended consequences of Germany’s Energiewende perhaps the most extraordinary is the detrimental effect of wind and solar schemes on the price of electricity generated by natural gas. Almost 20 per cent of gas power plants in Germany have become unprofitable and face shutdown as renewables flood the electricity grid with preferential energy. To avoid blackouts, the government has had to subsidise uneconomic gas and coal power stations so that they can be used as back-up when the sun is not shining, the wind does not blow and renewables fail to generate sufficient electricity.
The mess is forcing struggling utilities to contemplate even more radical solutions. http://e.on/, Germany’s biggest energy company, is thinking of dismantling some of its European gas power plants, mothballed because they are no longer profitable, and relocating them outside the EU. Such farcical considerations become symptomatic of the unintended consequences caused by the rapid expansion of renewable energy.
Europe’s manufacturers are rapidly losing ground to international competition. Instead of putting money into the energy-expensive EU, investors are pouring money into the US, where energy prices have fallen to one-third of those in the EU, thanks to the shale gas revolution.
The naive assumption of policymakers that Europe’s main competitors would follow the shift from cheap fossil fuels to expensive green energy has not materialised. Europe, The Washington Post recently warned, “has become a green-energy basket case. Instead of a model for the world to emulate, Europe has become a model of what not to do.”
Europe’s strategy was founded on two fears: first, that global warming was an urgent threat that needed to be prevented imminently and at all costs; and second, that the world was running out of fossil fuels, which meant oil and gas would become ever more expensive. Both conjectures, however, turned out to be wrong.
The result of a fear-driven gamble with the Continent’s industrial future is a costly shambles that threatens to undercut Europe’s economic and political position in a world that is sensibly refusing to follow its lead.
Germany’s green energy strategy is likely to change significantly after federal elections on September 22; Merkel has promised voters to drastically curtail the €20bn burden they have to pay renewable energy investors every year should she win.
Australians would be well advised to watch this green train wreck very closely if they wish to avoid a repeat of the fiasco that is unfolding in Europe.
Benny Peiser is director of the London-based Global Warming Policy Foundation.
The Australian, 10 August 2013
Dear Colorado Springs Utilities Board members,
Benny Peiser wrote a timely article titled "Europe pulls plug on its Green Future" in this weekends edition of "The Australian".
Europe has found that subsidized green energy is not sustainable, is not a growth industry and has increased electricity rates to 40 cents per kilowatt hour.
Please do not approve the 2 megawatt solar garden tariff which is subsidized by taxpayers with a $776 per megawatt hour federal subsidy, and CSU ratepayers with a large subsidy. Please use the lessons learned in Europe and not repeat their failed policies.
The comments above are enlightening due to how they mostly attack the writers of opinions rather than the facts of the case. Here are the facts and they are undisputed:
Morse is being recalled by his constituents for NOT doing his job, for NOT upholding the Colorado Constitution, for LYING to his constituents when he said he would do as his oath of office directed and for being a man who encouraged others in the state senate to not do theirs.
He is also being recalled for voting to raise the electric rates of Coloradoans who live in rural areas and wanting them to install costly, expensive and unneeded "green" energy.
He is being recalled for NOT listening to the Sheriff's who have to enforce the unconstitutional and unenforceable anti-gun laws passed by the state legislature. The Sheriffs told him the laws as passed do NOT make common sense. What did he do? Voted to pass them! Now MORSE is wasting taxpayer money having to defend these issues in court and the lawsuit brought by the Sheriffs. He made the choice to ignore his own constituents and they are speaking out and recalling him.
He is asking the sheriff's to deny, denigrate and be totally disdainful of the meaning and intent of state constitution which has provisions in it to protect gun rights and the right to self defense and home protection.
The founders of this state knew, like the founding fathers of the country did, that there will be times that arrogant, power hunger people get into office and they will need to b contained not only by the ballot box but by other measures such as recalls. John Morse is feeling the history of the state on his shoulders and his poor judgment and lies to his constituents.
Morse was so disdainful of his constituents and the people of Colorado that he were denied them a chance to testify about laws that would affect them but allowed those who did not live here and would NOT be affected by the laws to do so. That shows his disdain and dislike of his own voters.
The Sheriffs who are fighting Morse in the courts over these life threatening laws also took an oath of office but they are upholding theirs - Morse is not.
He is trampling on constitutional rights of citizens in Colorado. That is why he is being recalled.
The Sheriff's are NOT allowing him or Giron or others who faced recall to wage a war on women, children, the handicapped and the elderly who are the victims of the gun laws. The Sheriffs are standing tall to protect them while Morse did not. They can't be everywhere when a call for help comes in and they need citizens to be able to defend themselves until they can get there. So Democrats wage a war on these citizens through their foolish, personal agenda and emotional driven laws as well as little coaxing from Joe Biden who offered them a carrot to vote the way Bloomberg of NY wants. Morse chose to take the carrot offered which shows his lack of character and the reason he said he wanted to be in office -to represent his voters. He is doing anything but.
The group -a whole lot of liars for Morse are saying it was Denver Extremists who want him out - wrong! Lies! It is his own constituents who do for all the reason listed in this opinion piece.
He is being recalled for NOT allowing Coloradoans to testify but allowing outsiders such as Mark Kelly and his wife Gabby Giffords to do so when they are both hypocrites of the first class. The next day after testifying, Kelly went to a gun shop and purchased an AR which he claimed in testimony is dangerous, should be banned by the Colorado legislature and is an "assault weapon." He also purchased a handgun for double effect. Giffords posed with an AR when she ran her campaign and used it as a symbol for being tough in office.
I will do like Morse suggested to his senators which was to ignore emails from their constituents. Ignore the fabrications and support for Morse from the left.
Instead focus on the negative hits he is causing to Coloradoans: loss of jobs, loss of revenue to the state, loss of productive citizens who are moving out of the state to one with common sense, higher taxes, loss of protection for ALL Coloradoans from the thugs and criminals who will kill you with no remorse. That is the true John Morse and he MUST be recalled.
Is that so Zen? Well, if people like you ruled the world, the country would be 17 trillion dollars in unpayable debt. Social Security and Medicare would be insolvent and about to crash in 15 years. NASA wouldn't be a space agency but an outreach program to teach muslims about their non-existent scientific contributions. Detroit would be bankrupt and Al Qaeda would be winning as we run with our tails between our legs. The NSA would spy on all American citizens with phone wiretaps at a pace that would make Orwell blush. The IRS would be used as a political tool against a Presidents enemies in a fashion that would make Nixon jealous. Filmakers would be put into prison for exercising their First Amendment rights in order to give political cover to a President, and his Secretary of State, for a blunder that killed 4 Americans and a 16 year-old Denver boy (American citizen) would be drone murdered in Yemen with no due process. Boy it sure is a good thing that people like you don't rule the world......oh, uhhhhh..... wait a minute. You see the difference, Zen? You speak of some imagined way people like me MIGHT have destroyed the country, and I show you how people like you HAVE ruined the country. Try dealing in facts and save your emotional screeds for the 6th graders that might be impressed by them.
Once again the Springs had an opportunity to get an early jump start into and make a name for itself in a fast evolving, exponentially growing new industry. Instead it passed up thousands of jobs and billions of dollars because the bluehairs choked on pennies. The lack of vision in the Springs is simply mind blowing. Then again this is the community that was falling all over itself to attract hardware and chip manufacturing even though those industries were already headed oversees, and everybody else was moving on to global communications and Internet technologies. Flash forward 15 years, and while Fort Collins, Denver and Boulder reach new heights, the Springs tech corridor is a sad collection of empty buildings and dilapidated strip malls. Congratulations, curmudgeons. The brain drain continues and the Springs continues it's slide into mediocrity. Off to read the story about your $1.6 BILLION backlog of infrastructure projects. Nice going.
"Of course I never ask a question I don't already know the answer to."
Stacy you don't know sh*t. The obstructionism of the curmudgeon class in the Pikes Peak region is ridiculous and shameful. If people like you ruled the world, we never would have had a federal interstate highway system, space program, the Internet or any of the thousands of other advancements we have thanks to public investment in new ideas. And yes that includes failures along the way. But it's also what's made the US great .. and that obstructionism I speak of is why the Springs is increasingly lapped and laughed at. You're so focused on pinching pennies today you fail to see the dollars to be made. Like I said, you don't know sh*t. All you're apparently good at is complaining.
Very information article. Thanks. As a Mother Earth News and Joel Salatin reader, I'm interested in solar panels for my home to ensure that I will have access to electricity should the CSU grid ever fail. BUT I'm opposed to having my neighbors near and far subsidize my choice. Solar technology is rapidly improving this product, one which needs improvement to reduce the size of panels, their longevity, and upfront cost. It appears that it is in our community's best interest to NOT be on the cutting edge but instead to wait a while until the improved product is on the market. I'm reluctant to buy panels now, panels that have a 20-year projected life, only to find that it's more cost effective for me to replace them in 5 years.
Olszewski argues that because China's govt is subsidizing this industry our federal and local govts should do the same. I say NO to govt favoring one competitor over another. For now, let's buy the panels from China, which I'm assuming will eliminate the necessity for subsidies, and install them in gardens. Eventually, American entreprenurial ingenuity will bring a smaller, cheaper, longer lasting solar panel to market and I don't think I'll have to wait very much longer for this to happen.
Among many other things, the three Koch Bros are into oil, gas and coal. The quiet Koch who lives in Colorado is in the coal business in this state. These 3 are not going to let any upstart make inroads into their billion dollar fortunes, thus it's no wonder our sellout of a city government justified and rationalized NOT participating in the liberation of America from fossil fuel empires run by old fossils like the Koch brothers. Our current pirate of a mayor owes his election to the Kochs and AFP.
For Sale: Colorado Springs Government and its elected facades
All due respect Lisa, but it sounds like you made a decision to postpone this based on fear of the unknown. Leaders make bold decisions to take their entities to greater places. A 'no' vote only did more to solidify our position as a city as mediocre at best. It is really no wonder that YPs flee for greener pastures.
Okay, so if your photo-voltaic array (solar garden is THE LAMEST euphemism EVER, last I checked all gardens are solar except for Madison Square in NY) operates so well and generates electricity you can sell, why not just buy some land in Arizona and build it, and then sell that electricity to cities? Of course I never ask a question I don't already know the answer to. ANSWER, because it doesn't generate squat. You are just another huckster trying to sell something to a municipality that you couldn't sell to anyone else, not unlike the Simpsons "Monorail" episode. So private sector not interested, municipalities not interested, I suppose there is always Obama. Just change your name to Solyndra and we can just lather, rinse and repeat.
All content © Copyright 2014, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation