Greg Walcher

Government officials never consider their own complicity in policies that make matters worse.

It is beyond hypocritical for Biden to ask other countries not to reduce fossil fuel production, while waging war on production in his own country.

Conservatives may not need to worry so much about the outrageous cost of electric vehicle subsidies. With virtually no cars meeting the requirements, it may not cost taxpayers anything at all.

There is no technological barrier to California using the ocean to supply all its water, no “breakthrough” needed. They may have a problem with political will, but they do not have a problem with science.

For generations, the conventional wisdom has been that we are losing open space and wildlife habitat to development at an alarming rate. The conventional wisdom may be wrong.

If you think reducing fuel in the forests would not help prevent fires, you might also think picking up a banana peel would not prevent slipping, running out of gas would not make us late to the party, and removing food from our plates would not help our waistlines.

Some political activists never seem to tire of meddling with Colorado’s complex water laws, and with the management of our rivers.

Clearly, all energy decisions bring trade-offs. Long-term climate change that we cannot see or accurately measure, or dead bald eagles that we can?

Which side will Colorado be on this time? Will its officials defend its water, or knuckle under to federal control?

Wall Street’s creation of a new asset class is the first step on the road towards institutionalized ownership of nature.

Rural activists say they are tired of being ignored, and outvoted, by people in the large cities who are isolated from the interests of rural communities, both geographically and culturally.

Harry was an environmental scientist, an expert on trees, plants, and wildlife habitat.

Why is the New York Times writing about Colorado water? Because Wall Street investors plan to get rich by rerouting it.