Here’s where Central WA Congressional candidates stand on climate issues
The politicians who represent us must take positions on a wide variety of issues.
For those voters who are concerned about climate change and the solutions used to prevent or adapt to it, the Tri-Cities Citizens Climate Lobby team has asked each of the candidates running to represent the 4th Congressional District in Washington to take positions on climate change.
We asked the candidates to outline what they would do, as a member of Congress, about climate change in terms of policy and legislation, and where they position themselves between two different approaches to ten aspects of climate change. Our summary is here. The full statements are available at https://tinyurl.com/WACD4climatesurvey.
The seven of the eleven candidates who participated span a range of positions.
Jerrod Sessler would “ensure unfounded climate related initiatives do not negatively impact American liberty or cost of living including but not limited to regulations or citizens tax and spend policies.”
John Duresky believes “we need to develop nuclear power to mitigate the worst impact of climate change, and start moving our economy off of carbon intense economy of today” and will work to restore incentives for solar and wind power.
Ken Vaz says “Climate change and environmental stewardship should be addressed through practical solutions, not policies that raise costs for working families,” and “We should be expanding access to affordable electricity through investments in hydropower, nuclear energy, grid modernization, and targeted utility relief programs.”
John Hughs says “Instead of promoting electric cars that force the further rape of the planet for the rare earth minerals, we can simply burn hydrogen. It has no carbon chain exhaust that has literally caused so much pollution it has warmed our planet by pollution. This can be done! It also frees the American people from dangerous and oppressive forces of oil.” He did not say how hydrogen would be split from oxygen.
Jack Kobiesa says “I would focus on practical, measurable policies that improve our environment while strengthening American industry and protecting taxpayers. I would work to dramatically reduce waste. We must better utilize energy that is currently wasted. I would prioritize modernization of wastewater treatment systems.”
Devon Poore offers five priorities regarding climate change: “water conservation strategies, climate adaptation resources for agriculture, increased clean energy investments, staffing & funding increases for forest & wildfire management, public wildfire home insurance options for affected homeowners.” He supports “agrivoltaics - the installation of solar panels alongside and across agriculturally productive land.”
Favien Valencia supports an “all-of-the-above” energy strategy that includes hydropower, nuclear energy, advanced geothermal, solar, wind, storage, clean fuels, and next-generation technologies.
Matt Boehnke did not participate in the survey, but his campaign website says he is “the leading voice for advanced nuclear, clean hydrogen, and an affordable, reliable power grid critical to supporting Central Washington’s agriculture, food processing, and growing manufacturing base.”
Amanda McKinney did not participate in the survey, but her campaign website states her positions on energy and water resources.
The candidates position themselves between two different approaches to ten aspects of climate change:
Regarding global warming, John Duresky, John Hughs, and Devin Poore strongly agree that global warming, driven by human activities, threatens our well-being, while Jerrod Sessler strongly agrees that the climate has always changed by itself, and is nothing to worry about. Ken Vaz leans toward the former statement, while Jacek Kobiesa leans toward the other, and Favien Valencia is neutral.
Regarding energy portfolio choices, Sessler strongly agrees with continuing to subsidize the fossil fuel industry, Kobiesa, Poore and Duresky strongly agree with subsidizing carbon-free solutions, including nuclear and renewable energy, while Hughs leans toward the former and Vaz and Valencia lean toward the latter.
Regarding climate and the economy, Duresky, Poore and Hughs strongly agree that we can thrive by practically addressing climate change, while Sessler agrees that prioritizing climate change solutions negatively impacts business and economy. Vaz and Kobiesa are neutral on this question, while Valencia leans toward the former.
Regarding making important public decisions, Sessler mostly trusts his own lived experiences, judgments, beliefs and values, Kobiesa and Duresky mostly seek out opinions and perspectives different from their own, Hughs and Poore are neutral, and Vaz and Valencia lean toward the latter.
Sessler, Hughs and Duresky strongly support allowing renewable power generation on public lands, Kobiesa and Poore lean toward it, and Vaz and Valencia are neutral.
Regarding the repealing of the EPA Endangerment Finding that carbon dioxide is a harmful pollutant, Duresky strongly agrees that repealing it is a mistake that will ultimately increase pollution and harm the climate, while Sessler strongly agrees that repealing it removes unnecessary regulations and will improve the economy. Vaz and Poore lean toward the former, Hughs and Valencia are neutral, while Kobiesa leans toward the latter.
Regarding regulating carbon dioxide and methane as pollutants, Duresky strongly supports it, Vaz and Poore lean toward it, Valencia is neutral, Kobiesa leans against it, and Sessler and Hughs strongly oppose it,
Regarding forest management, Sessler strongly agrees that it should be done with no reference to climate science, Valencia is neutral, while Vaz, Kobiesa, Hughs, Poore and Duresky lean toward using explicit climate science for using forests as carbon sinks.
We hope that voters will find this helpful as they vote in the upcoming primary.
By Steve Ghan, Charles LoPresti, Marjie Reinig, Craig Mills and Debbie Muller