Ritter Tops List as Nation’s “Greenest” Governor

July 1st, 2009
feature photo
Print
x

Send to a Friend:










Email Larger Smaller

Reported by Staff

Greenopia, an online directory of eco-friendly retailers, services, and organizations, has released a “green” ranking of 50 United States governors. Topping the list is Col0rado’s own Bill Ritter followed closely by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California. The entire ranking results are listed below.

The designation as the greenest Governor in the nation wraps up a notable month of June for Ritter. Earlier he received the Father of the Year Award from the American Diabetes Association, and was  profiled on the www.coloradodads.com website during the month.

“We looked at all 50 governors in the US and compared their policies, transparency, and interest group ratings and ranked them. It was a monumental task,” said Doug Mazeffa, Greenopia’s director of research. “People want to know which Governors are the eco-leaders or laggards, and especially identify those making repeated eco-gaffes.”

Data for this study was collected from each governor’s own web pages and cross-checked against credible sites such as VoteSmart and OnTheIssues. Energy and emission data was collected from the Department of Energy and the environmental platform data for each political party was collected from either the DNC or RNC’s main site.

Greenopia says that as part of its mission to keep consumers (and voters) informed on issues of eco-friendly importance, the Greenest Governors project reveals which state governments are most dedicated to preserving the environment. The U.S. Constitution preserves the notion that America is a federation of sovereign states and legal powers not specifically granted to the federal government are retained by the states. This means that Governors and state legislatures hold significant sway over state-based green initiatives and policies.
 
“Over the past few years we have begun to see certain states emerging as environmental leaders,” remarked Gay Browne, Greenopia founder and CEO.  “Those states enacting environmental laws stricter than federal guidelines have gone to greater lengths to protect the environment and to create more sustainable development, including green jobs.”

The Top Ten Greenest Governors

1. Bill Ritter of Colorado

2. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California

3. Ted Kulongowski of Oregon

4. Christine Gregoire of Washington state

5. John Baldacci of Maine

6. Martin O’Malley of Maryland

7. Bill Richardson of New Mexico

8. James Douglas of Vermont

9. Jon Corzine of New Jersey

10. Jodi Rell of Connecticut

Filed Under: ARCHIVES • Policy

Tags: • • • •

Get Colorado Energy News and alerts as they happen:
Enter Email:

There Are 2 Responses So Far. »

  1. Comment by cogas on 2 July 2009:

    Greenopia may champion the governor for being green, but I would bet the Center for Common Sense in Government won’t give him a medal. He is certainly on the black list at the Save the Nation with Fossil Fuels Association. As a nation we are way overextended financially, so the money to pay for all these projects goes in our debt category. We HAVE to pay that off, or at least way down. We cannot continue creating money from air, then patting ourselves on the back and telling each other we are doing the right thing. An economy must make something, sell it on outside, and make a profit on it, and keep its money. Being #1 means we compete. We aren’t making anything with the carbon market, the wind and solar business cannot compete with oil, natural gas, or coal, except on the intangible side of the ledger, where Greenopians hang out. And since this is largely government funded/taxpayer funded, there is no profit for us! Our state and federal administration don’t want us to compete amongst ourselves or internationally. Lastly, we are not saving as a government nor as a population. Conserve first, use what is available and make it clean, don’t discard it for some utopian view that will drive us to the poor house. That holds for government as well as people, since the two seem to have become separated these days.

  2. Comment by Kelly Park on 16 September 2009:

    I’m not certain Governor Ritter is aware of a dire situation for landowners in Southern Colorado caused by the Colorado State Landboard. In essence, the State of Colorado is receiving income from mining being done on private land, at great and irretrievable expense to the land owners. The State of Colorado traded the surface of this Section 36 to Red Creek Ranch, a land developer, but retained the mineral rights. There was a minerals lease and a clay lease at the time, but neither were then or are now of record. Also, a company who had been mining sporadically on the parcel for some years had been mining illegally (without a reclamation permit), so there was no way for purchasers to know they existed. They were “caught” and ordered to cease and desist by the State Land Board. After writing a letter to the state saying this would “hurt their business” they were eventually rewarded with an expanded reclamation permit that was highly protested and covered areas now privately owned. My husband and I are owners of this beautiful, rare and unique wetland canyon area. The hearing for the permit was the longest in history to date, and despite protest for hundreds of local residents and archaeological reports, this was approved anyway. Why did the state receive proceeds from a not-in-compliance mining operation, and not record the mineral or clay lease, then trade the land to a developer. The mine has expanded exponentially since then, destroying private property. Reclamation does little good in a 15-foot deep pit. Also, the state says they have the right to bring in mined products purchased elsewhere and store it on acres of our land for resale to the public. At the county level, they only have a building permit for clay mining issued in 1977, applied for by another company. There are three permits existing on one parcel, two leases and a long history of the leases trading hands. The canyon area which is currenly being affected has been called one of the rarest archaeological sites west of the Mississippi. Now the mine has applied for expansion onto another 129 privately-owned acres for stripping. How does sandstone, which comprises the entire parcel, become a locatable mineral? What about Farrell vs. Sayre? Why is peat a mineral according to the State Land Board? The mine was denied two years in a row after careful deliberation by the planning commission for this expansion. The county commissioners also denied this expansion in the middle of a subidivsion of homes and on private land. Now they’ve sued Pueblo County for expansion onto our land. They’ve stated publicly that “they will leave us a little bit of our land that we can still use”. This has been a nightmare for my husband, myself, other land and home owners and rock climbers, palentologists, archaeologists and concerned citizens in the area for years. When will this stop? This is happening at the hands of a state government who claims to champion these rare and amazing natural areas. I simply don’t understand. Are we teaching our school children that money for education (actually mostly to the privately owned miners) is worth ruining our natural resources and the lives of the land and home owners?

Post a Response