City council members will cap its 21,000 residents to just six stations – One legislator who voted said they felt an ‘obligation’ to fight global warming
‘We have an obligation to take every step possible to address the changes to our climate that are ravaging our planet and directly impacting the health, well-being and livelihoods of the constituents we represent in Louisville,’ council member Maxine Most said. … The suburb, around 20 miles outside of Denver, currently has five gas stations, and although a sixth was recently approved for development, the resolution could make that facility its last.
‘We should be taking whatever incremental steps to not create additional fossil fuel infrastructure,’ said the councilmember, who also serves on the city’s Economic Vitality Committee. Most added: “I understand that there are negative consequences for certain parties when we make these sorts of decisions. But I personally believe we are well past the point where we have that luxury. If we’re really committed to sustainability and we really recognize there’s a climate crisis, that means every time we have the choice to do something about it, we need to do something about it.”
By: Admin – Climate Depot
By WILL POTTER FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
Dem-led Colorado city BANS new gas stations in bid to tackle climate change: Now limited to six in town of 21,000 people
- Louisville, Colorado has voted to ban gas stations to fight climate change
- City council members will cap its 21,000 residents to just six stations
- One legislator who voted said they felt an ‘obligation’ to fight global warming
The blue-run city of Louisville, Colorado will ban all new gas stations as local lawmakers say they feel an ‘obligation’ to fight climate change.
City councilors in the town of 21,000 approved a proposal Tuesday evening to cap the number of gas stations for their constituents to just six.
A seventh station would only be permitted if a large retailer swoops in, but the limitation was praised by a Louisville legislator who said the move was necessary to combat global warming.
‘We have an obligation to take every step possible to address the changes to our climate that are ravaging our planet and directly impacting the health, well-being and livelihoods of the constituents we represent in Louisville,’ council member Maxine Most told Fox News.
The proposal includes a spate of climate-oriented provisions intended to reduce Louisville’s emissions.
Alongside limiting gas stations in the town, new or modified stations will also be required to install at least two charging ports for electric vehicles.
The suburb, around 20 miles outside of Denver, currently has five gas stations, and although a sixth was recently approved for development, the resolution could make that facility its last.
The plans also include a ban on all gas stations within 1,000 feet of existing stations, and special use approvals for existing gas stations will be needed if any station is closed for a year.
Speaking before the vote, councilwoman Most admitted that the move wouldn’t stop climate change, but said the small community should continue with the plan anyway.
‘We should be taking whatever incremental steps to not create additional fossil fuel infrastructure,’ said the councilmember, who also serves on the city’s Economic Vitality Committee.
Louisville’s green policies are intended to meet several of its climate change fighting goals, including meeting the entire city’s municipal electricity needs with carbon-free sources by 2025.
The community has also set goals of reducing its greenhouse gas emission levels in the coming years, and generating 75 percent of its residential, commercial and industrial needs with carbon-free sources by 2030.
According to the recently approved policy, the law’s authors felt a push to introduce electric cars will entice motorists to make the switch away from gas.
‘Gasoline station bans may also be seen as promoting the use of Electric Vehicles (EVs), thus, reducing vehicle emissions and encouraging low-carbon and cleaner energy options for transportation,’ it says.
‘The proposal for a cap but not a full ban on new gasoline and automobile service stations is in recognition that there will continue to be some demand for gasoline and automobile service stations as more EVs enter the market and gasoline vehicles are transitioned out of the market over time.’
#
The blue-run city of Louisville, Colorado will ban all new gas stations as local lawmakers say they feel an ‘obligation’ to fight climate change.
City councilors in the town of 21,000 approved a proposal Tuesday evening to cap the number of gas stations for their constituents to just six.
A seventh station would only be permitted if a large retailer swoops in, but the limitation was praised by a Louisville legislator who said the move was necessary to combat global warming.
‘We have an obligation to take every step possible to address the changes to our climate that are ravaging our planet and directly impacting the health, well-being and livelihoods of the constituents we represent in Louisville,’ council member Maxine Most told Fox News.
The proposal includes a spate of climate-oriented provisions intended to reduce Louisville’s emissions.
Alongside limiting gas stations in the town, new or modified stations will also be required to install at least two charging ports for electric vehicles.
The suburb, around 20 miles outside of Denver, currently has five gas stations, and although a sixth was recently approved for development, the resolution could make that facility its last.
The plans also include a ban on all gas stations within 1,000 feet of existing stations, and special use approvals for existing gas stations will be needed if any station is closed for a year.
Speaking before the vote, councilwoman Most admitted that the move wouldn’t stop climate change, but said the small community should continue with the plan anyway.
‘We should be taking whatever incremental steps to not create additional fossil fuel infrastructure,’ said the councilmember, who also serves on the city’s Economic Vitality Committee.
Louisville’s green policies are intended to meet several of its climate change fighting goals, including meeting the entire city’s municipal electricity needs with carbon-free sources by 2025.
The community has also set goals of reducing its greenhouse gas emission levels in the coming years, and generating 75 percent of its residential, commercial and industrial needs with carbon-free sources by 2030.
According to the recently approved policy, the law’s authors felt a push to introduce electric cars will entice motorists to make the switch away from gas.
‘Gasoline station bans may also be seen as promoting the use of Electric Vehicles (EVs), thus, reducing vehicle emissions and encouraging low-carbon and cleaner energy options for transportation,’ it says.
‘The proposal for a cap but not a full ban on new gasoline and automobile service stations is in recognition that there will continue to be some demand for gasoline and automobile service stations as more EVs enter the market and gasoline vehicles are transitioned out of the market over time.’
#
You could wipe Louisville from the map completely and it wouldn’t make any difference to the climate.
Fortunately, the largest “gas station” (and generally least expensive) in the area is just over the U.S. 36 bridge at the Superior, Colorado Costco. Just down the road is Boulder where gasoline is always more expensive.
In any case, Louisville climate is about the same it ever was, cooling slightly if anything.
Yeah but the climate is till changing and we all know that’s baaaaad.
These people OBLIVIOUSLY didn’t live through the ’70s and gas lines imposed by rationing. If they had they would realize that making gas powered cars wait idly by in long lines waiting for a pump is a tremendous waste of resources
I buy my gas at that Costco also. With 12 pumps, it is usually at least a 5-minute wait as cars are stacked up waiting for their turn
I can only imagine my impatience with EV charging.
I fill up early in the morning at Costco as then generally there is no wait at all. It opens at 6 AM.
True – and just think of the resultant de-population!
You wipe the entire state of Colorado off the map and it wouldn’t make any difference either
That would be a good thing for Mankind’s sanity levels.
Whoever did this would need to spare the southwest part of the state–we still need Lauren Boebert in Congress.
Wipe the EV bandwagon off the map and it wouldn’t make any difference to the climate.
Ford just put a big dent in the EV bandwagon loosing billions.
Many forecourts in London have been redeveloped with housing
Petrol stations are getting fewer and more distant, but filling up still takes minutes
Maxime is your archetypical brainwashed politician who should have been kept as far away as possible from the levers of power. Perhaps at the next election …
Dysfunctional and proud of it! Admitting that doing something stupid won’t make any difference then going ahead and doing it is shirley a mark of something dysfunctional.
And it’s Maxime, not shirley! 😉
Fossil fuels are so dangerous that is why the West has spent so much time trying to exploit countries that are edndowed with them. Look at all the recent wars – dictators wanting to exploit other countries resources.
I’m sure the owners of the 6 approved servos will be pleased.
The real questions are who owns them and are they tied to those voting for the ban.
Note the statement: “A seventh station would only be permitted if a large retailer swoops in, but the limitation was praised by a Louisville legislator who said the move was necessary to combat global warming.”
So, if that statement is correct, they have clearly written it to benefit those who might be able to afford to bribe local officials.
What large retailer, or any other viable business, would ‘swoop in’ to do business in a town where the people are certifiably nuts and appear willing to use political force to achieve any end. I suggest that at the next meeting of the council, they vote to change the town’s name from Louisville to Looney-ville.
Hoping for a super-Walmart or Costco I’m certain.
That would significantly increase the town’s CO2 emissions. But we all know that is not the reason for the destruction of free markets.
It would also significantly increase the town’s tax revenues more than another gas station and mini-mart would.
I’m not sure I follow the logic of the city council. Will one less hypothetical gasoline station cause people to drive less or more? If the town were to expand and a proximate fuel station was not available, it would seem that residents would have to drive further to get fuel.
Also, do these people understand competition or are they going to legislate equity in fuel prices. Limit competition, limit consumer choice, limit resiliency. You would think that putting in a fresh new, fuel station that can’t grandfather all kinds of regulations that have been introduced since the last station went up would sort of go against their Build Back Better by keeping the same old aging petro stations running without any new upstart.
Gas stations also sell a lot more than just fuel and lottery tickets. They are limiting people in those choices too.
Yay Representative Government !
Symbolism doesn’t necessarily need to be logical.
A good deal of the text appears to be repeated. Might want to do some editing.
The irony of this idiocy is if people in their brain dead town have to drive further to get gas or wait in more lines to get gas because they don’t want to “add” any new fossil fuel infrastructure, the “town” emissions will probably INCREASE.
As for worse-than-useless EVs, the town “council of idiocy” obviously didn’t read up about the San Francisco yuppies who couldn’t make it to the Lake Tahoe ski resorts in their EVs because of how short their “range” becomes in hilly areas in cold weather.
Of course, that should NEVER be a problem in COLORADO. /sarc
The same amount of gas will be dispensed as it doesn’t change that.
If you must drive additional miles to fill up because the six stations always have long lines, then you must fill up more often. Those are wasted miles and gasoline. Additional gasoline will be dispensed over time. Also, gas is burned idling in lines at those stations. Instead of a fill up being 14.2 gal, it may be 14.4. Perhaps not much, but it will add up over time.
Do you have a link to that story? I did a quick search and it did not come up, probably because I am not using the correct search terms. Just another story to use in aggravating virtue signalling “greens”.
Search in the Boulder Daily Camera
Commercially zoned property just outside the city limits on the main highways just got more valuable.
The law of unintended consequences will kick in. The Stupid, it burns.
I call it the law of predictable consequences.
reduce gas stations? – sounds racist and anti poor people to me- so they only want the well off who can afford EVs
“anti poor people”
But… but the poor have to be saved from themselves…
“[Sadiq Khan] says a group of climate deniers and conspiracy theorists has piggybacked on genuine cost of living concerns about expanding the Ulez charges for polluting vehicles to greater London.”
What do they really mean by cross-party agreement? They mean the Parliamentary dictatorship has decided.
“Chris Skidmore, the Tory net zero tsar, and Labour mayor Sadiq Khan today write in the Guardian that they are putting party politics aside to defeat those politicians who are trying to delay climate action.
Skidmore, MP for Kingswood, began locking horns with his colleagues in 2021 after the Guardian exposed links between net zero-sceptic Tory MPs and a climate denying thinktank. After reading the coverage, he decided to set up a net zero support group of MPs and fight to keep climate action on the agenda.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/mar/23/labours-sadiq-khan-and-tory-chris-skidmore-team-up-to-fight-climate-delayers
For climate denying thinktank read GWPF
I bet these legislators banning gas stations have no solar panels on their roofs, and all drive big SUVs or pickups.
and they probably happen to live close to one of those gas stations
Big SUVs yes, pickups no.
“Louisville’s green policies are intended to meet several of its climate change fighting goals, including meeting the entire city’s municipal electricity needs with carbon-free sources by 2025.
The community has also set goals of reducing its greenhouse gas emission levels in the coming years, and generating 75 percent of its residential, commercial and industrial needs with carbon-free sources by 2030″.
There is no such thing as a “carbon free source”. Somebody needs to arrange a field trip for these idiots to a series of mines where the raw materials used for their “carbon free sources” are extracted and processed, then transported to a a manufacturing facility to view the energy intensive manufacturing process, then ride along in the various transports (ships and trucks), help out with the site prep, help out with the site assembly, participate in the life cycle maintenance, and ultimate decommissioning. And, because their “carbon free sources” only last a fraction of the time a FF thermal plant lasts, they get to rinse and repeat more frequently. If they are talking about using nuclear energy, that’s a different story, but I’d bet dollars to donuts that for them, nuclear is off the table.
For the record—Louisville is just outside the People’s Republic of Boulder, inside Boulder County.
If they had the courage of their convictions, they would eliminate all the town’s gas stations. Yeah, right!
Another short sighted plan. This will bring on lines and waste even more gasoline use. DOH!
This idea is yet another example of an epidemic of mental anemia sweeping the country. Fighting global anything is not in the purview of a local council, or commission, or any other elected board. For any reasonable judge this ought to be a no-brainer. If there is anything we need in the face of this epidemic of mental weakness it is no-brainers.
Yep, to fight no-brainers we must adopt more no-brainers. The adoption agencies will be swamped.
They just approved another new station and sent the signal of a market cap on local competition. Now just how large do think that town is, and do you think it’s economically separate from Broomfield and others? Don’t just read, question while you read.
Have they voted to eliminate fast food drive thru? If not they are kidding around.
Makes a lot of sense! I mean, if you can’t provide a decent density of charge points and you can’t provide enough electricity for EVs, the solution is, of course, to cut availability and accessibility of fuel for ICEs.
Just don’t get in the way of staff reposting gasoline prices. You might get run over.
Global warming causes bad public policy. The models say so and debate has ended.
My concern is that the EPA, California, and States that follow California’s lead will keep tightening emissions standards for ICE’s to the point where it is impossible to produce an engine that meets those standards. Current emissions standards are so tight that the exhaust from a car in LA cleans the air. So driving more reduces air pollution. The EcoZellots will try any means to reach thier goal which is not a clean, pollution free environment. And once the New World Order is established, the useful idiots will be the first to be eliminated from the surplus population.
Unfortunately that seems to be the problem. We are all a bunch of frogs in a huge pot that is getting close to the boiling point. You know it, I know it and (most) everyone who reads WUWT knows it. Problem is, the vast majority of frogs are clueless – only interested in Tik Tok videos and trying to figure out what pronouns to use. Plus, they think the water is just dandy – like a hot tub. They can’t for see that it will become a death trap.
One of these days the water will boil, and the stupid, ignorant frogs will be jumping all over the place trying to escape. Those of us who know what is to come are trying to escape and maybe lower the water temp now, but it seems we are over-ruled by ignorance of our fellow frogs. And worse are those who are being told by the powers that be that the water is going to be turned up, and will eventually boil. And yet they still vote for those powers!
California will not get left behind in the race to stupid.
story tip
California lawmakers to vote on possible gas price penalties – ABC News (go.com)
story tip
This is in New Joisey:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/03/walmart-to-charge-customers-42-cents-per-shopping-bag-starting-march-28-to-tackle-climate-crisis/
Where I live the charge has been 8¢, now for about three years. I got a bushel size box and save the extra cost. The “plastic” bags sold at the checkout line are nice for certain things, so I do buy about 3 each year.
Colo. state now (as of Jan 1 2023) requires a 10-cent per bag charge applied to every purchase that uses one. These 42-cent people must be really serious about combating climate!
So … preventing Global Warming is important unless Costco wants to move in.
Oops. Not to worry — there’s a Costco right next door in Superior.