The second congressional district candidates voiced their views on important energy and climate policies in a debate to a packed room on March 18, and promised leadership on what they consider to be the most important issue of the day.
The Center for Energy and Environmental Security, an interdisciplinary research and policy center at the University of Colorado Law School, hosted “Choosing Our Future: A Debate on U.S. Energy and Climate Policy,” between the district two candidates Joan Fitz-Gerald, Jared Polis and Will Shafroth. The forum gave them the change to voice their views on policies and to talk about the issues they would push in Washington, D.C. if elected.
Paris Lumb, a student in the law school and the CEES Lead Coordinator in Volunteers and Publications, said it was part of CEES’s mission to make the information they produce available to the public.
She said she believed it was important for the candidates to have an open forum with the public about these issues.
“Politics is one arena that we can affect some change in,” she said.
Victoria Ravenscroft, another law school student and CEES’s research associate, said climate issues were a hot, if not the hottest, topic in politics.
“We invite the public into our home, and bring the candidates to them,” Ravenscroft said. “It’s an open and peaceful forum, and you learn a little in the process.”
All three candidates emphasized that climate and energy problems are the defining issue of the generation.
Polis said there is a need to have more open discussions about climate and environmental issues.
“We need to have more forums like this to deeply explore the issues,” Polis said. “Too frequently in campaigns the issues people talk about are the silly issues that don’t matter, like how people are being funded, those kind of things. Or, we have debates that compress the entire answer on climate change into two minutes,” he said in his opening remarks.
Shafroth spoke of the effects that environmental policies have on society.
“Energy is the defining issue of our time,” Shafroth said. “It affects our environment, our climate, our economy and jobs, our foreign policy and international security. It affects everything we care about in this country.”
There were many similarities in the candidates’ views on different energy policies. For example, the candidates were asked whether they would support “clean coal.” This refers to coal that has been chemically washed, gasified and burned to remove sulfur dioxide to and to minimize carbon dioxide emissions reentry into the atmosphere.
All three candidates said they would not support using a technology, which had not been scientifically proven efficient and could potentially produce more pollutants.
“The science isn’t there,” Fitz-Gerald said. “It’s not a science that produces a clean product.”
Shafroth urged people to work on different technologies, such as solar and wind power, rather than clean coal technologies and coal plants.
“We need to focus on things we can really do, and really do effectively,” Shafroth said.
The candidates also found common beliefs in the role of bio-fuels in future energy resources.
They said they believed bio-fuels need more research and investment before they become a usable energy source. They also urged more research and funding for solar and wind power, renewable energy technologies “proven to work.”
Fitz-Gerald said that Continental Airlines is set to fuel a transcontinental flight solely on bio-fuels.
“I wouldn’t want to be on that flight,” she said to laughter from the crowd.
However, the candidates disputed about the use of nuclear energy in the future. Both Shafroth and Fitz-Gerald answered nuclear energy should not be a part of a comprehensive solution to the energy crisis.
However, Polis said nuclear energy, with research and cost-benefit analysis, might play a meaningful role in meeting future energy needs.
“It shouldn’t be removed from the table because it has the word ‘nuclear’ in it, and people are scared of the word,” Polis said.
Another source of disagreement among the candidates was the use of a cap-and-trade-system such as a carbon tax alternative.
A cap and trade system, also known as emissions trading, is an alternative considered to reduce emissions. In theory, the government would put a cap on how much pollutant can be emitted, and issue emissions permits to companies to hold a certain allowance. These allowances give the company the right to emit that specific amount of pollutant. Companies can trade allowances if one needs to emit more pollutant and one emits less pollutant, referring to the trade aspect.
Shafroth said would support implementing a cap and trade system. He said when he spoke with the scientific community in Boulder; they said it was what the government has to do to stave off the effects of global warming.
Polis said he believes a combination of a cap-and-trade-system with carbon tax incentives would play a constructive role in reducing emissions. He emphasized a commitment to monitoring businesses that emitted too many pollutants and enforcing the consequences.
Fitz-Gerald said it was not the best solution because it was a matter of social justice for those who have to be near polluting facilities. She said the system would “only get us so far.”
Fitz-Gerald encouraged tax incentives for renewable energies.
The three candidates also emphasized sharing energy efficient technologies with developing countries such as China and India, and said Americans should leverage trade agreements and sanctions with developing countries to encourage them to reduce emissions. Additionally, the three also agreed that population controls, such as family planning, would reduce the carbon footprint both nationally and internationally.
Though many people were pleased with the candidates’ responses, some students had hoped to see more research in their answers.
“So much research has been done, they need to make bolder statements,” said Bridget Molloy, a senior ecology and evolutionary biology major. “We need to pay more attention to research, and take it more seriously. A ton of research has been going on climate change, and it keeps circulating in the news but no one takes it seriously because they think they’re saying the same thing. People need to go to the(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) to make more informed decisions.”
Contact Campus Press staff writer Marcy Franklin at marcy.franklin@colorado.edu.
