Re: “Endangered snowpack<\/a>,” Denver Post three-part series on climate and ski industry, Feb. 15-17<\/p>\n The Post seems to be heavily focused on climate change and any weather that supports its philosophy. Over the last few days, there were a number of articles on Colorado\u2019s recent warm\/low snow weather and climate change.<\/p>\n However, this partial analysis doesn\u2019t provide a full picture, including:<\/p>\n 1) For at least the last five years, there have been typical snows and temperatures here.<\/p>\n 2) It ignores the record cold\/snow in the eastern United States this year that killed more than 100 people.<\/p>\n 3) Huge lakes froze over this year (such as Erie and Champlain) that rarely freeze. It begs the question — is weather variability being confused with climate change by The Post?<\/p>\n In examining the complex climate, a complete analysis is needed to provide a comprehensive view– not cherry-picking events that meet a predetermined agenda. I wonder if The Post has a significant \u201cconfirmation bias\u201d on this issue, where anything that doesn\u2019t agree gets buried and things that confirm it get endlessly pushed.<\/p>\n William Turner, Denver<\/em><\/p>\n With the \u201cEndangered Snowpack\u201d article, there\u2019s a color timeline graph of the number of days that individual Colorado ski resorts were open in 2025, plus dismal projections for 2050 and 2090, based upon the assertion that the \u201cdamage already done by anthropogenic climate change to the U.S. ski industry is evident\u201d. That may be the case, but such climate change, reputedly caused by greenhouse gas emissions, could not have occurred overnight.<\/p>\n In other words, why are there no graphs for 2015, 2000, 1995, etc.? (If the number of ski days in past decades is not easily obtainable, then the recorded snowfall would probably have made a better metric for this analysis.) Regardless, any valid attempt to predict future snowfall is meaningless if it fails to include statistics on snowfall from previous years.<\/p>\n John Contino, Golden<\/em><\/p>\n Re: “States fail to meet another deadline for water deal,” Feb. 17 news story<\/p>\n The Post has been carrying a series on the current drought-caused water shortages and their impact on the ski resorts. These stories are of “above the fold, front-page importance.” \u00a0Tucked away in the upper corner of Page 2 on Tuesday is an article about states missing the deadline for an agreement on distribution of the shrinking water flows in the Colorado River and the threat of the Bureau of Reclamation stepping in and setting the distribution. Extended litigation is forecast.<\/p>\n The dispute between the states boils down to the split between the Upper Basin states and the Lower Basin states, and whether the Upper Basin states should reduce their allotments during low-flow years, which they oppose.<\/p>\n The Colorado ski industry uses a tremendous amount of Colorado River water to make snow. The Front Range cities divert tremendous amounts of Colorado River water for urban domestic use. Both have purchased sufficient senior water rights to sustain current standards, but these are Colorado state water rights, which could have dubious value in the negotiations over the interstate distribution of available river flows.<\/p>\n In the current political climate, Colorado, being a so-called “blue state,” may have trouble retaining these rights. The president is throwing out all kinds of threats of retaliation for perceived slights, and he controls the Bureau of Reclamation. In particular, Denver, a “sanctuary city,” could be very vulnerable to having its current diversion severely curtailed.<\/p>\n I hope the Denver Water Board, as well as city and state officials, and our Congressional representatives, act expeditiously to mitigate any adverse impacts.<\/p>\n Richard (Dick) Emerson, Denver<\/em><\/p>\n Re: “Global energy demand is rising as Colorado is still restricting operations<\/a>,” Feb. 15 commentary<\/p>\n In her opinion column on global energy demand, Lynn Granger creates a false dichotomy when she states, \u201cColorado politics has framed energy policy as a moral choice rather than a systems challenge.\u201d Energy policy is both a moral choice and a systems challenge.<\/p>\n Given the\u00a0scientific consensus\u00a0that fossil fuels are the root cause of the climate crisis, and given the\u00a0impacts we\u2019ve seen here in Colorado\u00a0— including the fires, floods, beetle-kill, meager snowpacks, and the dire condition of the Colorado River — doing anything other than constraining the burning of fossil fuels can be considered a crime against the people of Colorado.<\/p>\n And, given that the whole planet shares the same atmosphere, any steps that would perpetuate or increase the burning of fossil fuels in Colorado could readily be considered crimes against humanity. Energy policy is indeed a moral choice.<\/p>\n And energy policy is also a systems challenge. Our challenge is to transition our energy systems from huge, established, and entrenched extractive and polluting industries to systems more reliant on clean energy and more resilient to disruptions by climate-change-driven weather events.<\/p>\n Fortunately, many of the technologies we need are already available. And they are being implemented right here in Colorado. In 2024, Colorado overtook California as the EV capital of the United States<\/a> with 25.3% in new EV sales. The electricity delivered by Holy Cross Energy<\/a> was 85% clean last year.<\/p>\n We can get to a cleaner, safer, healthier future, but Ms. Granger\u2019s false choice doesn\u2019t help us.<\/p>\n Chris Hoffman, Boulder<\/em><\/p>\n Lynn Granger\u2019s guest opinion is basically \u201cdrill, baby, drill\u201d obfuscated in a word salad. Instead of \u201cdrill, baby, drill\u201d she talks about \u201cmaximizing existing assets\u201d and \u201cpreserving affordability.\u201d She helpfully points out that burning hydrocarbons is an easy and relatively cheap way to provide additional energy, because demand is increasing.<\/p>\n Granger chastises Colorado leaders for prioritizing the \u201ctired\u201d and \u201coutdated\u201d framing of renewable energy. Her opinion is nothing more than the classic Baby-Boomer approach to everything — \u201clet\u2019s consume it, burn it, use it up, borrow and spend it\u201d and then pass all the problems down to our children and grandchildren.<\/p>\n When you boil down her opinion, it turns out to be — take the easy way out.<\/p>\nDon’t let politicians get involved in water compact negotiations<\/h4>\n
Move beyond false choices in energy policy<\/h4>\n