The Rockies road Report a useful guide to regional trends . . . and mile-high anxieties Although only in its second year of publication, Colorado College’s 2005 State of the Rockies Report Card already has become a valuable resource and reference work for anyone interested in tracking trends in this incredibly diverse and dynamic part of the country. It was released Tuesday in conjunction with an annual conference that’s also growing in importance for those interested in exchanging ideas about the challenges facing the West. Economics professor Walt Hecox & Co. have made an already thorough report even better by taking on the daunting task of tracking down virtually every statistical indicator on every county in an eight-state region. Even more audacious is their effort to grade each county based on this dizzying array of indicators (including a few of mystifying relevance, including a “bohemian index,” “melting pot index” and “gay index.”) While interpretation of the data and grades is open to debate — is, by design, an invitation to debate — the accomplishment is impressive. Not content to confine themselves to the accumulation of dry and lifeless statistics, the authors also include in the report a number of essays dealing with such regional issues as energy policy, urban sprawl, Indian sovereignty and the maintenance backlog at national parks, signaling a desire to stay on top of emerging trends. If we have one critique, it’s that organizers, in their choice of conference participants, are still showing a bias in favor of the pessimists, alarmists and utopians, as opposed to the optimists and realists. Perhaps that’s because the former faction tends to garner all the attention in most of these debates. But it means the program sometimes tilts toward making mountains out of molehills, in spite of the fact that many Western trends are positive and problems surmountable, with a bit of common sense and stakeholder cooperation. There is the obligatory fixation on “sprawl,” the bugaboo of the better-living-through-urban-planning crowd, and a presentation on the “Toxic Rockies” — which raises the question of why such a “toxic” place is growing and “sprawling” at three times the national rate. Somehow, the rape of the West by miners, loggers, ranchers, drillers and developers hasn’t prevented it from becoming the nation’s most desirable place to live. We don’t mind hearing from renewable energy guru Amory Lovins, in spite of the fact that he’s been wrong about virtually everything and needs to get his feet planted more firmly on the ground. But why not balance Lovins’ presentation with the views of Peter Huber, whose new book, “The Bottomless Well,” presents a potent rebuttal to the energy depletionists and doomsayers? A nice balance was struck in Tuesday night’s challenge lectures, featuring University of Colorado history and environmental studies Prof. Patricia Limerick, who made a career gleefully puncturing Western myths, and economist Terry Anderson, a free-market environmentalist whose most recent work shows how cooperation, rather than conflict, characterized most conduct in the supposedly “wild west.” But any semblance of balance or debate went out the window with Wednesday night’s discussion of energy policy. Nary a word of dissent or realism was heard as New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson larded a speech promising a “new energy policy” for a “New West” with airy platitudes about how “technology,” “renewables” and “biomass” were going to liberate us from our dependence on fossil fuels. No one dared challenge Richardson on the potential costs, economic upheavals, technical challenges or trade-offs involved in such a scenario. The conference would benefit from a little less group-think, in other words, and a little more actual debate. Those caveats aside, we believe the report and conference, although only two years old, already are making a vital contribution to the never-ending but endlessly fascinating discussion about what being a Westerner means and how we can make the Rocky Mountain region an even better place to live. And we applaud Hecox, Colorado College President Richard Celeste and everyone else involved in the project for their efforts. The Report Card and conference seem destined to become events of national, as well as regional, importance. The fight against offshoring begins at home Atest is coming of how serious the United States really is about combating the offshoring of “American” jobs. But for once, it won’t come in the form of protectionist legislation meant to turn America into an economic fortress or punish companies that dare send work overseas. This time, it takes the shape of a 76-item list of manufacturing reforms drawn up by the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, which are meant to ease the regulatory burdens that make it hard for America’s moribund manufacturing sector to compete. OMB’s recommendations were submitted several weeks ago to the Environmental Protection Agency and other federal agencies for review. Those that pass muster will become part of a regulatory relief package. Reactions to the proposals will help identify those who want to tackle the offshoring issue here on the home front, by helping make American companies more competitive, and those who want to posture and pander by blaming it all on external forces beyond our control. We’re sure the Bush administration will be accused by some of responding to a wish list of reforms drawn up by “industry,” just as it was pilloried for turning — gasp! — to the energy sector for advice on energy policy. But who better to ask about the costs and consequences of regulations than the heavily regulated?