An A for effort Rockies report card earns good grade, even if positive attitude is lacking In our third annual grading of Colorado College’s third annual State of the Rockies Report Card, we give the effort a solid B. The report itself is well organized, beautifully illustrated and appealing to the eye. It’s packed with graphs, charts, footnotes and statistics, touching on nearly every aspect of the Rocky Mountain region, making it an invaluable reference work for policy wonks and laypersons alike. It’s an impressive accomplishment, only three years after launch. But as in years past, the report’s analytical sections and “challenge essays” tend toward sensationalism or pessimism, as if the authors — economics professor Walter Hecox and his able student researchers — fear that if they don’t have something alarmist to say, no one will pay attention. Many of the key statistical indicators in the report’s “Rockies baseline” paint a surprisingly positive picture of trends; surprising, because most of the chapters are predicated on gloom and doom. We get warnings about the threat Colorado’s ski industry and ecology face from climate change, based on computer models. We learn about how urban sprawl and development are devouring ranches and farms. We read about an allegedly steep decline in “biodiversity,” caused, of course, by that scourge called humankind, and hastened along by the spread of invasive species. And in a follow-up to last year’s focus on the “toxic Rockies,” a statistical soup is cooked up to make the case that minorities in the region are facing eco-discrimination, because they are disproportionately represented in “toxic blocks” where industrial facilities are also sited. Yet all this section proves is that certain types of businesses and facilities tend to be concentrated in urban areas — where many low-income people and minorities also tend to live. Conspiracy or coincidence? The authors’ call for more “environmental justice” implies the former. The authors expend just one sentence in the 12-page section noting that “residents of a toxic block group” — a needlessly inflammatory label for these areas — “are not necessarily experiencing any negative health effect as a result of the nearby toxic facility.” But the lingering implication that this is all part of some dark plot to poison minorities seems overwrought. The region’s explosive growth, though it certainly brings challenges and change, is a telling indicator of its overwhelming appeal and coveted standard of living. How this squares with the often dark portrait painted in the report is hard to explain. If things are so bad in the “toxic Rockies” — urban sprawl gobbling up open spaces; ski slopes melting down; animal and plant extinctions setting a record pace — why are so many people flocking here? They must not have read these reports. We’re not saying these aren’t challenges or problems worth examining — in a balanced and dispassionate way. But the thrust consistently tends toward doomsday scenarios and policy overreactions. There are exceptions, though, even if they prove the rule. This year’s report includes a provocative look at endangered species “myths” by Utah State political science professor Randy Simmons. Another section focuses on interesting new approaches to resource management; still another, on the creative things some ranchers are doing to tap new markets for their products, countering the trend toward a shrinking regional ranch sector. There was some thoughtful discussion about boosting the region’s political clout. But there we go quibbling again. Despite these caveats, we applaud and congratulate Hecox, his students and the entire Colorado College community for taking this project from nothing to something special in three short years. It’s an impressive feat. Whether or not one agrees with all the analysis, the State of the Rockies Report Card remains a must-read for anyone seeking a deeper understanding of the challenges, trends and, yes, endless possibilities of this wonderful part of the country. We’re sure the report and conference will only grow in importance in years to come. A sly Fox On March 31, the last day of his Cancun summit with President Vicente Fox, President Bush was full of praise for his Mexican counterpart. “I don’t know if people recognize (it),” Bush said, “but his government, all aspects of the Mexican government, came together to send a clear message to the American people (that) the Mexican government understands it has a responsibility . . . to protect the border.” The question is . . . which border? To judge from his actions, the border Fox seems serious about protecting is the southern border — the one Mexico shares primarily with Guatemala. So determined is he to maintain its integrity that his government has detained and sent back some 240,000 illegal crossers from Guatemala, Honduras and other Central American nations. Fox touts this as a big favor to Americans worried about their loss of sovereignty. Of course, it could also be viewed as a big favor to someone else — his own northward-bound countrymen, who will have about a quarter-million fewer competitors for low-skilled jobs in El Norte. If that seems cynical, recall that on a visit to the U.S. in 2001 Fox declared, “Our push is to look for more and more rights, to more and more Mexicans — as many as possible and as quickly as possible.” These, of course, being Mexicans who have taken up residence in the United States, without troubling to observe the niceties of U.S. law. Does that sound like someone who understands he has a responsibility to protect the border? We think it sounds like one very sly Fox.