Arizona Daily Sun - "Greenhouse gas-capping legislation divisive for CD-1 candidates"

Interview

Arizona Daily Sun - "Greenhouse gas-capping legislation divisive for CD-1 candidates"

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Questions

1. What's the nation's single greatest environmental problem, if any, in your opinion?

2. Would you support greenhouse gas-capping legislation, or a tax on carbon?

3. Should taxpayers fund a dramatic increase in thinning of Western U.S. forests?

4. Would you support requiring states to compensate citizens when environmental regulations limit uses of privately-owned land?

5. Do you support raising fuel efficiency requirements? (If yes, to what amount per gallon?)

6. Would you support increasing federal subsidization to fund exploration in traditional energy sources (coal, natural gas, oil)?

Answers

= = = = = =
Democrats
- - - - - - - - - - -
Ann Kirkpatrick

1. America's greatest environmental challenge is climate change, which is likely contributing to drought conditions here in the district. Our government must work with business to find economically viable solutions to this common problem. America should be a leader in the global community on this issue.

2. Like Senator John McCain, I support bipartisan efforts to reduce greenhouse gases through a free market cap and trade system.

3. Far too many times, we've seen the devastating economic and environmental impact of wildfires in the West. Investing in forest thinning is a wise use of taxpayer dollars to minimize the risk of catastrophic wildfires in the future.

4. The federal government should not create an unfunded mandate. States should be allowed to determine reasonable parameters and standards for compensation.

5. Yes. We have the technology to dramatically improve vehicle fuel efficiency, which would reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Congress just increased standards for the first time in three decades, but I believe we can do more.

6. No. The highest priority for our federal investment in energy sources should be in renewable and sustainable energy. Where traditional energy production facilities exist, we should invest in upgrading their efforts to produce cleaner energy.
- - - - - - - - - - -
Howard Shanker

1. We need to address the impending impacts of global climate change. We need to ensure that our grandchildren have clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and open spaces.

2. Yes

3. Forest care and maintenance have to be conducted based on sound science. And to the extent that forests are on public land, the federal government is obligated to take care of them. I do not, however, think that a "dramatic increase in thinning" of our forests is currently necessary.

4. It depends on the nature of the regulation, and the extent to which specific uses are precluded. The Constitution already requires compensation to private property owners if government action rises to the level of land seizure, under the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments.

5. Yes. Conservation is an essential element to battling high gas prices and climate change. Fuel efficiency standards should be based on all available science and technology. The ultimate goal should be to get away from our current carbon-based economy.

6. No. These industries have benefited from federal subsidization for generations and it is no longer appropriate to subsidize in this manner; the government's focus needs to be developing sustainable and renewable energy sources.
- - - - - - - - - - -
Mary Kim Titla

1. Our reliance on fossil fuels. Some estimate we have 40 to 60 years left of oil we can get out of the earth. We must have an energy strategy to make sure future generations are taken care of.

2. Yes.

3. Yes.

4. Yes.

5. Yes. 40 Miles per gallon

6. Yes.

= = = = = =
Republicans
- - - - - - - - - - -
Barry Hall

1. The polarizing attitudes of complacency and extremism.

2. No. I might come to support these limitations in moderation. I consider limiting environmental waste as a legitimate issue.

3. Yes. If the issue were only making the forest healthy some taxpayers might argue the need of thinning, but to me the major usefulness of thinning is to stop or slow down the inferno of a raging forest fire, especially one near populated areas.

4. No. Not at this time with my limited understanding of the environmental implications involved.

5. Yes. Absolutely! To at least 50 mpg.

6. Yes. It beats dealing with the Middle East. However, I would like to think a balance can be achieved by fair-minded citizens between profit interests in conventional energy exploration and finding safer sources of energy. Balance is complicated because of our sense of entitlement to energy in an energy-based economy.
- - - - - - - - - - -
Tom Hansen

1. Lack of a long term, clean, affordable water supply in all areas of our country.

2. No. It would be better to use incentives to develop markets for sustainable energy resources and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, while phasing out fossil fuel and nuclear fuel subsidies over the next 20 years. The incentive carrot will work more efficiently than the stick of a carbon cap or tax.

3. No. Commercial entities can harvest and thin forests in an environmentally sensitive manner with better utilization of resources and less overall cost to the taxpayer, while generating quality jobs.

4. Absolutely. Otherwise it is a taking by the government, which is prohibited by the Constitution and its amendments.

5. No. Let us put the priority and funding on development of affordable plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and cut transportation related fossil fuel use by 90 percent. Use of sustainable energy sources to produce the recharge electricity would cut total fossil fuel use even further.

6. Not at this time. In fact, I would support a 20 year phase out of existing subsidies for fossil fuel and nuclear fuel. However, we should not prohibit the environmentally sensitive extraction of energy resources from ANWR and outer continental shelf areas, among others.
- - - - - - - - - - -
Sydney Hay

1. Balancing our need for a healthy environment with the need for a strong economy and jobs.

2. No. In my energy plan I do call for a 10 year tax moratorium on research and development of carbon efficient energy solutions.

3. Forest health is a vital issue to CD 1. Sensible strategies to manage and protect our forests would combine both the private sector and federal tax dollars.

4. Yes. Private-property rights are a fundamental part of our constitutional liberties. When government takes away the value of someone's private property, the owner must be compensated for the loss.

5. I support allowing the market to dictate the fuel economy standards. Many automakers are already scaling back significantly the production of SUV's in favor of more fuel efficient vehicles. Doing this by government mandate interferes with the free market and, in the past, has resulted in increased highway deaths.

6. No. In my energy plan I think we need to allow the free market to work properly. I also believe that we must encourage the development and production of carbon efficient energies.
- - - - - - - - - - -
Preston Korn

1. When people are struggling to make ends meet they are less likely to care about the environment. A strong economy is of paramount importance to the environment. The second greatest challenge is our dependence upon fossil fuels.

2. No. We need consensus in the scientific community first. 17,000 scientists involved in climate study stated there is no evidence greenhouse gasses cause global warming. 4,000 scientists from around the world, including 70 Nobel Prize winners agree that greenhouse global warming theories are highly uncertain. We need more research, not regulation.

3. No. Partnerships with private business would make it so it doesn't cost the taxpayer anything.

4. Yes. We should all live by a couple simple rules. Do all you have agreed to do, and do not encroach on other persons or their property. Anytime the government makes changes that causes private land to be devalued the government should take responsibility for its actions.

5. I support increased fuel efficiency. However, I believe the free market system will correct. The higher the gas prices, the more people will demand higher fuel efficiency. We're seeing that now. Rather than a big stick, I suggest offering a carrot. A prize for the first vehicle that gets 100 mpg.

6. No. Oil companies don't need federal money for exploration. They just need government to allow them to explore.

= = = = =
Independent

Brent Maupin

1. Air pollution and water pollution are on the top of my list. However, with a common sense approach solutions for both can be found. The solution finding process begins with bringing only those who have high levels of integrity and expertise to the table, while leaving special interest groups out.

2. I will support an effective, common sense approach to our carbon emissions problems. Taxation does not provide solutions, as the tax is simply passed on to the consumer. The answer lies in providing incentives to develop clean, sustainable and environmentally sound fuels.

3. Yes. Currently there is not enough data to justify a nationwide program. However, we need a program that would clean up enough of our forests such that we would then be able to collect more accurate data. In general clean up is the way to go, less fuel means less fire.

4. Not for large tracks of land. For example, if a wildlife area is required to be set aside and not developed then the seller will simply have to sell the land for a bit less and the developer may have to charge a bit more for the area that is developed.

5. Yes, currently there is technology available that will allow, for example a Hummer, to get 60 mpg and double the horsepower. Imagine what we could do with a passenger car! For starters I would support 35 mpg, then bump it to 50 and then see where we could go from there.

6. Only to the extent that it promised reasonably good results to help clean up the use of these fuels.

Source