The Anchorage Daily News asked candidates in statewide elections their views on a variety of issues. We're posting their responses between now and Election Day. See each candidate's full list of answers by clicking on their mug shot in the right column. Question: Do you support enacting any laws or regulations to reduce human-caused greenhouse gas emissions as a way to moderate global warming? Explain.
Before laws or regulations are enacted we should study ways to regulate or reduce human caused green house gases.
On ballot by petition as no-party candidate, registered as (founding member) Veterans Party of Alaska
No! See above answer*. Better to stop the global warming SCARE, than to stop mythical global warming!
No! Global warming aka climate change aka climate disruption is a hyped-up profitable craze. Cap and trade is a green Ponzi scheme that dwarfs the mortgage securities scam. It will weaken America. If any global warming is actually happening, it is a recurring natural phenomenon that can be changed by a large natural disaster to global cooling. Enjoy your all too short life and stop worrying about "global" problems far beyond anyone's control.
Fredrick "David" Haase
"Any law" is to broad to answer "The Cap and Trade" program is another way for "The New World Order" Tyrants to squeeze more out of the working people of the world and that includes self employed and investors alike. It's the same model they use to control most of the world currency. If they like a particular polluter they will just issue them more pollution credit. While they tax other enterprises out of existence.
Our country should take steps to reduce carbon emissions as long as the legislation creates a strong incentive to switch our electricity production to cleaner burning fuels, especially natural gas. It should also include specific funding for an Alaska Adaptation Fund to address the climate impacts we are already seeing here in Alaska. Finally, any national legislation must be accompanied by international action. Without serious reductions by other high-emission nations like India and China, any American emission reductions will be largely ineffective.
Alaskans face some of the highest energy costs in the nation, despite being near tremendous natural resources. We need to power our homes and businesses at a reasonable cost. For this and other reasons, I strongly oppose the unconstitutional Cap and Trade legislation. Should we take drastic measures to combat something that may not even exist, burdening our already struggling economy with billions in new taxes and regulations?
I support funding, research and tax and grant aid to make renewable and alternative energy truly economic. By reducing the cost of wind, geothermal, biomass, hydroelectric and ocean energy and helping further natural gas and nuclear power, we can make non-carbon emitting fuels economic, actually saving Alaskans money compared to diesel-generated power.
Fossil fuels by their very nature are limited in their extent. We have begun the transition to less polluting sources of energy but all of this will take time. Coal is a dirty business. The transition from coal to Alaska's natural gas will help the environment and benefit the economy of Alaskans and all Americans.
Curtailing carbon emissions in the U.S. doesn't change the behavior of India and China, who are quickly overtaking America as the world's largest carbon emitters. Regardless of where greenhouse gases originate, they mix in the atmosphere. Cap and trade legislation amounts to little more than a tax on the American people, with the intent to needlessly raise the cost of energy to unattainable levels -- forcing the American people to turn to unproven and uneconomical renewable energy sources.
Tomorrow's question The Bush-era tax cuts are set to expire on Dec. 31. Which comes closest to your position: extend them for middle class, extend them for everyone, let them expire or other?