Colorado Ballot Locks In Natural Gas Rights Amid Climate Debate

Aspen —Will Colorado lock in the right to burn natural gas?

That is the question on the ballot. It sounds simple. It is not.

The short version: We are choosing between two bad options. One lets the government ban gas stoves in new buildings. The other writes a constitutional right to buy and sell gas into state law. Neither option allows for nuance. Both are blunt instruments.

Denver has been restricting natural gas equipment in new construction. The goal is clear: cut greenhouse gas emissions. The method is aggressive. You cannot build a home with a gas furnace or stove in certain zones. Is that fair? Maybe. Maybe not. The problem is that our grid isn’t clean yet. Denver pulls roughly 26% of its power from coal. So when you swap a gas burner for an electric one, you aren’t always swapping carbon for zero. You are swapping one source of pollution for another.

This is where the "ban on bans" gets messy. If we pass the constitutional amendment, the state can’t easily restrict gas sales anymore. That locks in the status quo. It protects developers and homeowners who rely on cheap, reliable fuel. But it also makes it harder to push for cleaner energy later. We are betting that the market will solve the climate crisis. History suggests markets are slow.

Read that again. We are amending the constitution to protect a utility choice. It feels like overkill. But politics works that way. If you don’t lock it in, the other side will take it away.

The same pattern shows up in other issues. Look at crime. Voters are deciding whether to raise penalties for fentanyl offenses. That makes sense. Fentanyl is killing people. But the proposal removes judicial discretion. Judges can’t look at the specific circumstances of a case. They have to follow the rule. That is risky. What happens when the rule doesn’t fit the person?

Hunting follows the same path. In 2024, voters were asked to ban the hunting of mountain lions, bobcats, and lynx. They said no. Now, two years later, we are being asked to write a constitutional right to hunt and fish. It is political ping-pong. One side swings left, the other swings right. We never land in the middle.

The middle is where the good solutions live. Encourage heat pumps where they work. Give incentives. Let technology improve. Keep gas where it makes sense. That is a reasonable plan. It is not dramatic. There are no flags to wave. Activists hate it because nobody wins big. Politicians love it because it is easy to explain.

We keep missing the middle. We keep picking extremes. We ban things. We un-ban things. We write rights into the constitution. We strip judges of power. We do it all because we are afraid of compromise.

Compromise is boring. It doesn’t make for good headlines. It doesn’t rally the base. But it might actually work.

The ballot measures are on the table. You get to pick. Pick the ban. Pick the un-ban. Pick the constitutional lock. Just know that you are choosing between two walls, not a door.

The road winds. We are driving fast. We are not looking at the map. We are just going.