Colorado’sDescentintoProgressiveMadness
How House Bill 25-1277 Climate Labels Solve Nothing
By Michael A. Hancock
There was a time when Colorado stood as a beacon of rugged individualism, a place where the pioneering spirit of the West thrived under the banner of limited government and personal responsibility. But in recent years, the state has become a playground for progressive policy experiments, each more detached from reality than the last. House Bill 25-1277, a proposal to require climate warning labels on fuel pumps, is just the latest iteration of this destructive trend—a policy so economically reckless, constitutionally dubious, and demonstrably ineffective that it exemplifies the worst excesses of modern progressive governance.
At its core, HB 25-1277 is an exercise in government overreach, a performative policy designed more to appease climate activists than to effect meaningful environmental change. By mandating that gas stations plaster warning labels on pumps proclaiming that their products contribute to climate change and adverse health effects, Colorado lawmakers are indulging in the fantasy that such paternalistic labeling will somehow alter consumer behavior. The problem? There is absolutely no empirical evidence that these labels work.
The failure of similar initiatives in San Francisco and Cambridge, Massachusetts, is instructive. Despite implementing climate warning labels on gas pumps, neither city has recorded any measurable reduction in gasoline consumption. If decades of increasingly dire climate predictions, media saturation, and classroom indoctrination have not weaned
Americans off fossil fuels, what magical power do these stickers hold? Spoiler: none. The vast majority of Americans fill their tanks out of necessity, not ignorance. The gas pump is not a political soapbox—it is a means to get to work, take kids to school, and keep the economy running.
But beyond its sheer ineffectiveness, HB 25-1277 represents an unprecedented encroachment on free speech. Forced speech— particularly when it mandates that businesses propagate a state-sanctioned message—is a direct violation of the First Amendment. The courts have repeatedly ruled that compelled speech must meet a high threshold of necessity and neutrality. Colorado’s proposed language is neither. Phrases like “linked to global heating and significant health impacts” are politically charged and contestable. If the government can compel businesses to display progressive propaganda at gas stations, what’s next? Will burger joints be forced to remind customers that red meat contributes to climate change? Will coffee cups warn that caffeine consumption may exacerbate anxiety? The state’s role is to inform, not to indoctrinate.
Then there’s the economic cost, which lawmakers in Denver appear willfully ignorant of. For small gas station owners, compliance with this mandate means increasedcost in purchasing, maintaining, and replacing these labels. If a retailer fails to comply due to vandalism or natural wear and tear, will they face fines? Will regulators be dispatched to enforce these mandates, burdening taxpayers with yet another layer of government bureaucracy? Meanwhile, fuel companies that distribute to Colorado will have to decide whether the logistical headache of complying with a statespecific regulation is even worth it. Higher operational costs invariably lead to higher prices at the pump—another gut punch to working-class Coloradans who are already struggling under inflationary pressures.
And let’s talk about consumer backlash. The cultural overreach of progressive environmentalism is already wearing thin. The push for electric vehicles—heavily subsidized by the government—has not yielded the universal adoption that activists hoped for. Many Americans recognize that EVs, while promising, are neither cost-effective nor practical for every driver. The market should determine these shifts—not bureaucrats with an ideological ax to grind.
By advancing HB 25-1277, Colorado’s progressive lawmakers continue their relentless war against the working class. It is they—rural workers, tradesmen, commuters—who bear the brunt of these environmentalist experiments. The affluent Tesla-driving elite in Boulder or Aspen can afford to cheerlead this initiative from the comfort of their carbon-neutral bubbles, but the working mother in Colorado Springs or the small business owner in Grand Junction will be the ones footing the bill.
It’s important to recognize what this bill isn’t: it isn’t about reducing emissions in any meaningful way. If Colorado were serious about environmental stewardship, it would focus on practical solutions: improving public transit infrastructure, incentivizing nuclear energy investment, or expanding carbon capture technology. Instead, progressives prefer the easy route—virtue-signaling policies that do little but burden businesses and insult consumers’ intelligence.
House Bill 25-1277 is a symptom of a broader sickness infecting Colorado’s governance. State leaders are no longer content with merely regulating industries—they now seek to impose ideological conformity. The result? A once-thriving, business-friendly state risks becoming yet another casualty of progressive overreach, where good intentions pave the road not to environmental salvation, but to economic
decline and regulatory tyranny.
If Colorado lawmakers truly want to tackle climate change, let them do so in a way that respects free enterprise, personal choice, and economic pragmatism. Otherwise, the gas pump warning labels of 2025 may soon become just another relic of failed progressive policy—much like the cities that tried them before.