On Point Vincent Carroll, editor of the editorial pages, writes his On Point column most weekdays. He is also an author and freelance writer. Reach Vincent Carroll at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.

• Blog front page
• Add this blog to your RSS reader

An official with Boulder’s Western Resource Advocates was not a happy camper last week when he heard about a poll sponsored by the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce.

“It’s dishonest to link drilling on the Roan to oil imports,” fumed Mike Chiropolos, referring to the poll’s finding that 60 percent of Coloradans would approve drilling atop the western Colorado plateau to cut our dependence on foreign oil.

“Producing natural gas anywhere in Colorado isn’t going to reduce the country’s demand for oil,” he said.

Not so fast, friend. As MSNBC reported earlier this year, “Honda’s Civic GX, a $25,000 natural gas vehicle sold in California and New York, stood atop the ‘greenest’ list, beating all gasoline-electric hybrids based on a ‘green score’ derived from fuel economy as well as health and global warming impacts.”

Kiplinger.com described the Honda Civic GX as simply “the cleanest internal-combustion vehicle on the road.”

Can any crystal ball foretell long-term growth in vehicles powered by natural gas (Roan energy supplies, after all, would be in production for decades)? As air quality and environmental pressures ramp up, who knows where sales might go?

To be sure, Chiropolos does raise a relevant question about polling methods. It’s hard for the public to answer survey questions intelligently if they don’t understand the context, and it’s difficult to provide context without biasing the result.

Like Chiropolos, I would not have linked the bonanza of natural gas under the Roan to energy independence. No, I’d have linked it to home heating bills and to a revenue stream from lease bonuses and other taxes that could relieve political pressure to raise taxes on all of us for higher education and roads.

But I suppose those opposed to drilling on the Roan wouldn’t have been thrilled with that question, either.

The old canard resurfaces

“As you know, as a state, Colorado ranks near the bottom of all 50 states in the amount of money per capita it spends on K-12 education . . ."
— Denver Public SchoolsSuperintendent Michael Bennet, in a letter to teachers last week

If Colorado ranks near the bottom of all 50 states, it’s in the quantity of accurate information provided to the public on education funding. There’s simply no other conclusion to draw when even Bennet, a straight shooter and all-around class act, succumbs to blarney regarding support for schools.

Colorado does not rank near the bottom of all 50 states in its per capita support of K-12 education. Not close. This canard has been repeated so often over the years that it has been transformed into an article of faith among many education-spending advocates.

Even the liberal Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute acknowledges that the state doesn’t rank nearly so low in straight-up comparisons of dollars spent. “Using data from U.S. Census’ Public Education Finances Report,” the institute concluded in a June report, “ . . . Colorado ranked 34th in per capita spending” for fiscal year 2003-’04.

Meanwhile, Governing magazine’s sourcebook (sourcebook.governing.com), a nonpartisan compiler of data, ranks the state 25th in per capita spending on K-12 education for 2005 (the latest available year).

If Bennet had said Colorado spends less per capita than the national average, he would have been right. If he’d told teachers that Colorado ranks near the bottom when calculating education spending per $1,000 of personal income, because we’re a relatively high-income state, he’d have been equally correct. (The relevance of this particular ranking is not entirely clear, though. Should a state’s citizens expect to pay a fixed percentage of their earnings for important goods and services as their incomes rise? Why?)

Bennet is right that Coloradans don’t spend lavishly on education, comparatively speaking. But we haven’t exactly been Scrooges, either.

Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.

READER COMMENTS

Awesome! So we'll all be driving natural gas cars now, just so David Hill's poll doesn't look like a total fraud?

This is thin even for you, Vince.

" I would not have linked the bonanza of natural gas under the Roan to energy independence."

Good for you Vincent....because there isn't a significant link.

You want to start reducing our dependence on foreign oil and the geopolitical shitstorm such a need produces? STOP spending $500,000 a minute in Iraq and start funneling that money towards making alternative energy this generation's moonshot.

Hey Jay- your opinion isn't wanted here. PIss off.

Ritter shat upon years of planning with industry, enviromental groups, and local governments to work out a comprimise regarding tapping the Roan. I'm praying he's a one shot wonder and we find someone better...soon.

Jay, which renewables?

Your opinion is not wanted here Mark. Piss off

I guess it is encouraging that all kinds of people read, or at least make comments on this opinion column, but could we get back to a slightly higher level? And I realize it is the same unwashed types that vote. Probably the title of Ms. Coulter's new book is spot on!

There are both oil fired and natural gas fired electrical power plants in in California. We are importing both oil and LNG from countries that hate our guts. The more natural gas we get from the Roan and Vermillion bluffs increases the supply of natural gas and therefore, reduces the price of natural gas we pay. The lower the price, the more that California burns LNG instead of oil. Wind turbines work only 33% of the time and vastly increase the need for gas powered back up generation. The solution is cheap, reliable base load coal fired power plants for electricity and gas for our homes, schools and businesses. Nuclear and coal gassification and coal to liquids is the long term solution to our energy crisis. Get over it!

Long term fellas...BIG PICTURE. Until you guys get this ridiculous idea out of your head that scraping the bottom of the barrel at home is going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil...your viewpoints are simply irreleveant because of their simplistic nature.

It is not rare to find crude oil powering electrical plants. They should all, however, be powered by natural gas, coal or nukes. To the extent that there is a mismatch of resource use, there is also an equivalent inefficient misallocation. And that always produces higher prices.

Natural gas is just one source of energy that can help remove the burden too frequently carried by crude. Chiropolos is nothing but an uninformed enviro-nut with an anti-energy agenda. He needs to take his carbon footprint elsewhere.

He also happens to be against energy independence, a growing economy, jobs, incomes, prosperity and even more needed government tax receipts and doesn't even know it. This tin-foil-hat wearing moonbat obviously hasn't thought through the cycle of wealth.

LOL. I see that jay has blessed this blog with his awesome presence. His ego is only surpassed by his lack of intelligence.

I see my fans are still attacking instead of debating.

Typical.

POST A COMMENT

• Carroll: Slippery holiday slope
• Carroll: Parental gall
• Carroll: Clearing the air
• Carroll: Blather about business
• Carroll: The 'Truthers' cult
• Carroll: Numbers game
• Carroll: Brownouts by design
• Carroll: Poor judgment