Candidates for Senate deeply split on energy, climate

WASHINGTON — If you were to vote for the next U.S. senator from Washington state based solely on energy and climate issues, you couldn’t complain for lack of choices.

Among the four leading candidates is an incumbent who has voted in alignment with environmental groups and a tea-party favorite who blames “environmental extremists” for the crux of the nation’s energy woes.

There’s also a veteran Republican politician who opposes capping and putting a price on greenhouse-gas emissions — a central tenet of President Obama’s energy policy. And a businessman who not only rejects that Earth is inexorably growing warmer but suspects that scientists deliberately cooked the data to push an agenda.

With Congress poised to take a final vote soon on financial regulation, climate and energy legislation remains one of the last major pieces of unfinished business before the November elections.

Sen. Patty Murray, a Democrat seeking her fourth term, shares Obama’s belief that Americans burn too much fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas. She has sought both to reduce demand through conservation and to increase alternative-energy sources.

Murray has voted to require automakers to significantly boost fuel mileage in passenger cars. She supports giving tax credits to promote clean-energy technologies and personally has sought millions of dollars in earmarks for companies working to develop wind, tidal power and biofuels.

Murray’s track record in recent years has put her in full agreement with positions held by such groups as Environment America and the League of Conservation Voters, according to Project Vote Smart, a nonprofit that analyzes voting records.

The House last year passed the first bill ever to curb heat-trapping greenhouse gases. The measure included a “cap-and-trade” system that would set a limit on overall emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases; polluters seeking to exceed their limit would have to buy emissions credits from companies that have surplus credits to sell.

Rep. Dave Reichert was one of only eight Republicans to vote for the plan, earning the enmity of many conservatives who regard cap and trade as a new tax.

The Senate is at an impasse over the energy bill, in part because most Republicans and some Democrats oppose cap-and-trade.

In an interview, Murray would not say whether she considers a price on carbon emissions an essential tool to combat climate change. She noted she is undecided about increasing the tax on gasoline as a way to help wean Americans off fossil fuels, saying consumers already pay a high price for energy.

“I will consider anything that has the goal of reducing our dependence on oil,” Murray said.

Dino Rossi, a two-time gubernatorial candidate and Murray’s chief Republican challenger, emphatically opposes cap-and-trade as a “job-killing national energy tax.”

Rossi said he’s not necessarily against setting a hard limit on carbon pollution but said the challenge is to do it without imposing additional costs to families.

“We need to strive for clean air and clean water,” Rossi said. “But I can’t say what that (pollution) limit should be.”

Rossi’s campaign said he believes Earth is warming but isn’t sure how much humans are to blame. That’s the same position he took during his 2008 campaign for governor when he said we should reduce carbon emissions rather than debate the cause of climate change. He said then that he favored incentives over government regulations, and he backed expanding highways to ease traffic congestion, which he argued would cut emissions.

In an interview last week, Rossi said all forms of alternative energy, including nuclear power, should be pursued. He also said the solutions to the nation’s energy challenge lie in the marketplace, not with the government.

When gas prices soared during the summer of 2008, Rossi noted, consumers quickly cut back on driving or switched to smaller vehicles.

Republican Clint Didier, a Pasco farmer endorsed by former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin, says the solution to our dependence on foreign oil is simple: Drill for it at home.

Didier believes enough oil and gas lie untapped beneath American soil and waters to meet domestic needs, if only environmentalists and regulators didn’t stand in the way.

“We need more drilling, and build more refineries,” Didier said. “We need to be able to use our resources.”

Americans used more than 7 billion barrels of oil in 2008, 60 percent of it imported, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

The Interior Department’s best guess is that between 67 billion and 115 billion barrels of recoverable oil is buried within 200 miles of shorelines, with an additional 21 billion barrels beneath federal lands. At that rate, the undiscovered oil could fuel the country for two decades at the most.

Asked if he believed the United States truly could drill its way into energy self-sufficiency, Didier said, “Yes, I do. Yes, I do.”

Didier is skeptical of warnings — including most recently from the National Research Council, the nation’s leading scientific body — that global warming is real and caused mainly by burning fossil fuels. Didier referred to the recent “Climategate” controversy involving allegations that British and American scientists manipulated their research.

Five separate investigations have reaffirmed that the fundamental science behind climate change is sound. Nonetheless, Didier said, “I do not trust the basic data.”

Republican Paul Akers, a Bellingham business owner, goes even further.

Climate researchers “are not scientists. They are people with a political agenda,” Akers said, calling global warming “part of the natural cycle” of Earth heating and cooling.

Akers contends private businesses always will out-innovate bureaucrats. He points to Toyota’s Prius hybrid car as an example of free enterprise solving the energy challenge.

Akers said he believes that technological advances soon will make wind, solar and other forms of green energy a reality — and argues against government involvement, even if only to provide tax incentives.

“I think the free market is going to do a fabulous job,” Akers said.

By Kyung M. Song

Seattle Times

Technorati Tags: electricity deregulation