Election day 2013: Fossil fuels take hits from Virginia to Washington State

From Virginia to Colorado to Washington, voters on election day 2013 threw their weight behind politicians and policies that limited the use of coal, oil, or natural gas. Bans on fracking, coal exports, and tar sands were on the ballot in a handful of states, and in most cases, the election day 2013 results did not favor fossil fuels.

Cliff Owen/AP/File
Virginia Democratic Governor-elect Terry McAuliffe waves while shaking hands with supporters during his election victory party in Tysons Corner, Va., Wednesday. Mr. McAuliffe defeated pro-coal Ken Cuccinelli on election day 2013.

Tuesday wasn't a great day for hydrocarbons. 

From Virginia to Colorado to Washington, voters on election day 2013 threw their weight behind politicians and policies that in one form or another limit the use of coal, oil, or natural gas.

Energy from fossil fuels isn't likely to disappear anytime soon, and supporters of the carbon-heavy fuels say curbs on emissions threaten to stymie economic growth. But election day 2013 served as a sort of referendum on Americans' attitude toward the country's changing energy mix, with bans on fracking, coal exports, and tar sands up on the ballot in a handful of states. In most cases, the results did not favor the status quo of US energy.

Environmental groups see election day 2013 as a microcosm of a broader public trend toward favoring clean energy as a way to mitigate the effects of climate change. In particular, they point to the defeat of pro-coal Ken Cuccinelli by pro-regulation Terry McAuliffe in the race for governor of Virginia, a state that has long profited from the region's coal industry.   

"This victory in Virginia is round one," Michael Brune, executive director of Sierra Club, an environmental group that contributed to Mr. McAuliffe's campaign, said in a statement late Tuesday. "Those running for office now must choose whether they stand with solutions or whether they stand in the way. The climate crisis won’t wait, and neither will we.”

Voters in three Colorado cities choose to limit or outright ban the use of hydraulic fracturing in their communities. Boulder and Fort Collins placed five-year bans on the advanced drilling technique used to wring oil and gas from stubborn shale rock formations. Lafayette went one step further, banning any new oil and gas wells in town. A push to place a five-year moratorium in Broomfield, Colo., was narrowly defeated.

While the four cities don't produce a statistically significant amount of the nation's oil and gas, they do sit in the heart of the Niobrara shale, one of the six regions that account for 90 percent of the country's growth in oil and gas production. Other states in the region have been watching the referendums as a barometer of public sentiment over a drilling technology that pumps a mixture of water, sand, and chemicals deep underground to unlock oil and gas. Ninety-five percent of all oil and gas wells in Colorado have been hydraulically fractured.

“We never believe a ban is necessary,” Doug Flanders, a spokesman for the Colorado Oil & Gas Association, an industry trade group, told The Denver Business Journal Tuesday, before the polls closed. “Our experience with people all across Colorado is that we take responsibility for our energy use. Banning a product we all use every day is damaging to the Colorado brand of compromise and reasonableness."

In Washington state's Whatcom County, voters backed four Democratic county council candidates who are likely to vote against plans for a $600 million coal export terminal in the region. The terminal would ship as much as 48 million tons of coal a year to China and help establish the state as a major coal exporter. Environmental groups and coal companies had injected tens of thousands of dollars in the campaigns. Environmentalists viewed the results in Washington as a win.  

“It’s a signal: Nationally, the coal industry is in a death spiral, and cannot find buyers for its product,” Eric de Place of the Sightline Institute, an environmental policy nonprofit based in Seattle, told The Seattle Post-Intelligencer. “They cannot even buy an election right now.  They’re grasping at straws.”

The news wasn't all bad for oil and gas. South Portland, Me., voted 51 percent to 49 percent against the Waterfront Protection Ordinance, which would have banned crude oil from tar sands from flowing into the city's import terminals. Voters in Youngstown, Ohio, voted down a fracking ban on election day, for the second time this year. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Election day 2013: Fossil fuels take hits from Virginia to Washington State
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today