Opinion: Climbing and politics


I was going to write about national politics this week, but the death of local climber Jack Roberts led me down a different path. Jack was a friend and a climber who inspired me to do more. His death from a fall on an ice climb near Telluride hit me much harder than I would have expected.
I have been climbing for about 50 years. Climbing is important in my life, and has consumed large amounts of time and energy over all those years. For me, climbing is not like most other activities. When I’m doing it, I am fully engaged — physically, mentally, and emotionally. At the moments of choice which occur in climbing — about whether to keep going up or turn around, or more starkly to climb up or fall off — there is nothing else in focus. And at the “up or fall” moments, when it’s not possible to just quit and walk away, making the choice to commit, stay focused, and let go of the fear, is a microcosm of what a lot of life is all about.
Climbing is also an aesthetic experience. It is outdoors, which is great on its own, but the increased awareness of one’s surroundings that comes with the excitement and fear is what enhances the already wonderful sense of being in nature. Add to that the camaraderie that comes from sharing the experience with a good friend, the whole experience is very fulfilling.
Chris Weidner’s Wednesday column on Jack’s death brought back memories of some of my climbs: almost getting frostbite on my first winter climb on Mount Washington in New Hampshire and then a few years later completing the first “Winter Traverse” of all the presidential peaks in the White Mountains; traveling to Peru to climb right after college and then later while I was in the Peace Corps teaching Peruvian porters to climb so they could make a better living; moving to Boulder to go to grad school and to climb, including numerous adventures and mis-adventures in Rocky Mountain National Park; almost summiting Peak Communism (7,495 m) in the Pamirs but ending up doing two rescues with Soviet climbers; climbing Denali in Alaska and actually crawling back to my tent because I was so dehydrated; rock climbing in Eldorado Canyon, Boulder Canyon, and Lumpy Ridge (my favorite area); scaring myself silly on some of the multi-pitch ice climbs in Eureka near Silverton; and completing all the 14’ers. I make no claims to being any sort of great climber, but I have lots of good memories from these adventures and hopefully more to come in the future with good friends.
This brings me back to politics. Boulder has been making a big effort to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and to provide some leadership in addressing climate change. Our current look at creating a low-CO2-emissions/high-renewable-energy municipal electric utility is a major part of this, and is like a big climb. It is committing, has significant uncertainty about the outcome, and requires considerable human energy, financial resources, and time. I believe that most people in Boulder care deeply about the environment, and agree with the goals of Boulder’s climate efforts. Whether they voted for or against the ballot issues, most everyone seems to be saying that we need to address the climate issue and that Boulder has a role to play.
Boulder is taking the next steps toward determining if a “muni” is feasible. It would be good if everyone united around this project and made the commitment to put out maximum effort to have this succeed. The City will be creating opportunities for citizens to bring their expertise to bear, and also to watchdog the process to make sure that what we get is what we want. If we all engage at whatever level works for each individual, then if it turns out that a “muni” simply cannot be done in a way that produces the necessary economic and environmental results, it won’t be because we didn’t give it our best shot. But if the “muni” performs as well as many of us expect, we all can take satisfaction in a great accomplishment.

Popular Posts

Opinion: Opportunity for the new Boulder City Council

Congratulations to the four new Boulder City Council members! You have a great opportunity to make a contribution to the Boulder community, but it will take a lot of work to do it responsibly; the learning curve is pretty steep. Here are some suggestions for you (and other Council members) that may help improve the process. Read the Charter. It is the document that governs how you, city staff, and board and commission members operate, and how you relate to each other. It defines the limits of your and their power, and can only be amended by a citizen vote. You don’t have to remember every word. But just knowing what’s there makes you more self reliant and less at the mercy of others’ opinions. For example, relative to the recent meeting discussion over diversity, the council does  not  have the power to suspend the rules as to when the mayor is selected. Charter Section 14 specifies, “The mayor shall be chosen by the council from its own number, upon the convening of the new co
Read more

Opinion: Is this the end of Boulder as we know it?

Much of what has made Boulder such a great place to live has been the work of people half a century ago. These people recognized what I call the “ ratchet effect ,” that bad development decisions cannot be undone, so policies needed to be put in place to prevent, or at least limit, the damage that a growth-at-all-costs majority of the council could do. These policies include charter limits, like the Blue Line that prevents city water for development from being supplied above a certain altitude, the 55-foot height limit that has prevented high-rise development from cutting off our views, and the open space referendum process that allows a 60-day window for citizens to challenge disposals of open space. Other constraints include the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan’s requirement for Planning Board agreement for land-use changes in the area inside the city limits (Area I) and additional agreement by the county commissioners and county Planning Commission for urban development further
Read more

Policy Documents: Impact Fees and Adequate Public Facilities

I am writing this to correct some of the apparent inaccuracies put forward at the 10/14 CC/PB study session about charging growth for its costs. I do not claim to be an expert in the field, but I have studied it long enough and consulted with enough supposed experts and legal types to understand most of the basics. In addition, I have found that the experts don’t necessarily know everything and won’t necessarily put forward the most appropriate solutions. The fundamental rule, both legal and equitable, is that growth should pay to address its impacts so as to maintain existing levels of service (LOS) for existing residents and businesses. But growth cannot be required to improve levels of service. LOS is measured in all sorts of ways depending on the facility and/or service being measured. For transportation, it could be total VMT, travel time, intersection waits, access to transit, etc. For schools, it might be square footage per pupil, etc. For water, it could be water righ
Read more