I live in Boulder, CO. Last fall, after years of debate about renewable energy, the city voted to break away from our current power utility Xcel and start on the path towards our own municipal power utility which would heavily focus on renewables.
For those who don't know, Boulder is a very liberal community. It has one of the highest-educated populations in the country. It is home to several national labs -- NIST, NCAR, and NOAA -- which do world-class research on climate change. The windmills from the National Wind Technology Center peek over the foothills south of town. Several years ago the city even passed a tax to move itself towards meeting the Kyoto carbon emission goals. Last year demonstrations by Boulder citizens forced Xcel to commit to shutting down its coal-fired power plant here in the city. People even actually talk about renewable energy in everyday conversation.
So a vote to move the city towards a renewable energy future should have been a lock, right? Well, it did pass -- but only by 51.93% to 48.07% (see "City of Boulder Ballot Question No. 2C" at
http://webpubapps.bouldercounty.org/clerk/voterresults2011/IssueResults.aspx?issue=all ; there was also a corresponding issue 2B to fund the process which passed by a narrower margin).
To be fair, Xcel and its allies (which were not surprisingly against the measure) outspent the pro-municipalization forces by about 10 to 1. But people here are educated enough not to fall victim to scare tactics. There is no doubt the vast majority of people here believe global warming is man-made and that something must be done to prevent it. On a practical level, I got just as many pro-municipalization phone calls as those against the issue. Just as many pro-municipalization volunteers knocked at my door as hired guns against the measure did.
My point is that people talk a good game when things are theoretical. But if a real vote on the issue barely passed here in Boulder, then how would such a vote actually do in the general population?
