There were two articles in a recent Denver Post about the wisdom of mandating renewable energy. The first that I’ll mention is titled “A job killer or a job creator” by Allen Best. He mentions that the town of Craig, Colorado was “rocking” with construction of coal-fired power plants. Then the construction crews departed after the Colorado legislature mandated that Colorado must get 20 percent of energy from renewable sources by 2020. That mandate not only reduced the flow of money into the Craig economy; the renewable industry is expected to go to Wyoming and Nebraska to obtain wind resources that are more dependable and cheaper.

An observer leaving Craig noted the sky was crystal clear but the sky was not clear when he reached Denver. Rural Colorado doesn’t see the need for “cleaner” energy production and are understandably concerned about the loss of jobs from construction of power plants. Residents of Denver are concerned about the quality of air they are seeing and breathing. Perhaps this is one simplistic explanation for the increasing division between the metro area and rural Colorado.

Another Denver Post article by Greg Walcher is titled “Renewable energy and polyester leisure suits.” It basically says that we should not tie ourselves to the thoughts of the past (leisure suits), and the fascination with alternative energy. Legislation from 2005 required that corn be converted into ethanol, which is an inefficient fuel. There is no economic, environmental, or any other explanation for converting a food source for a starving planet into fuel, but the government continues to insist that the conversion is required.

Even more disturbing is that Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) required that millions of gallons of “cellulosic ethanol made from wood and other plants” be blended into fuel. EPA acknowledged there were no viable sources for that ethanol, but required refiners to buy “credits.” That means that refiners were required to pay a fine for something that had no commercial source. The National Academy of Sciences declared that the high cost of producing cellulosic biofuels made it “uncompetitive in the marketplace.” The oil industry sued and won, but the EPA countered with a requirement for even more “cellulosic ethanol.” The result of this requirement for a “phantom fuel cost” was, of course, passed to consumers.

The article closes with the observation that Colorado natural gas is available at historically low prices while demands continue to be imposed by regulation for more expensive alternative sources of energy. The Colorado legislature apparently is more concerned about the “Global Warming Lobby” than the pocketbooks of energy consumers.

As a footnote, global warming advocates are becoming more aggressive at changing the name of their cause “climate change,” which will allow them to blame any weather event on the activities of man.