Colorado's economy could not exist apart from it's ecology IMO. Changing one means affecting the other. Jobs that help preserve the natural habitats and landscapes of Colorado are the ones we should be investing in.
Many politicians want us to lower our expectations about the economy. I say it is time to raise them. For too long, we have acted as if we had to choose between strong economic performance and strong environmental performance. We have been trapped in the “jobs versus the environment” dilemma.
The time has come to create “jobs FOR the environment.” We seem to forget that everything that is good for the environment is a job.
Every kind of American can and should adopt the clean energy agenda: liberals, conservatives, and libertarians; farmers, ranchers, and urban property owners; struggling youth and entrepreneurs.
Where economic and energy policy meet, we should calculate not only what we spend, but also what we save.
When one person has more work than they can do, but still feel the work is worth doing/profitable, THAT PERSON creates a job. This is the only way a job is created. The govt only assigns task using threats of violence or force to fund them. A job is a voluntary work assignment, one that is voluntary to all parties - the one doing the job, the one asking for them to do it AND the one paying for it. Otherwise it is simply forced reallocation of resources.
2. Everything that is good for the environment has not been determined.
If I come to your house and force you to turn down the thermostat 10 degrees or force you to not heat your home at all....did I do a job? If I find a very fat family driving into McDs wedged in their huge SUV and I run them off the road, did I do a job?
Yaking about how CO needs its environment for its economy is barely skipping a stone on this issue.
I would suggest a science chic should be more sensitive to these issues, both the complexity of being "good for the environment" and the simplicity of forcing people to do or pay for things.
Photo-fish wrote: Colorado's economy could not exist apart from it's ecology IMO. Changing one means affecting the other. Jobs that help preserve the natural habitats and landscapes of Colorado are the ones we should be investing in.
Using what investment vehicle? Where is the money you are going to use to do this? How are you going to convince the people that currently own the money to put it where you want it? How to folks agree on the goals? What will you use to avoid corruption by those involved in the process of with access to funds?
So essentially, what are you actually talking about?
Of course, anywhere is dependent on its ecology, if this actually mattered Colorado would not be accepting anyone moving there. Rather than being generic, you could focus on one issue you still will not win on like fracking.
