WPSR 2018 Congressional Candidate Survey

This survey on climate and national security issues was sent to all Congressional candidates, Districts 1-10. 

The purpose of this survey is not to promote nor harm any candidate and is strictly non-partisan. WPSR does not endorse or oppose any candidates for public office. 

The results of this survey are published verbatim and will be continuously updated as we receive additional responses. 

WA state congressional districts.JPG

1. What is your view on the "No Unconstitutional Strike Against North Korea Act"? This act would prohibit the introduction of the U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities in North Korea without a declaration of war from Congress or explicit statutory authorization.

Adam Pilskog, District 1: I support Congressional declaration of war as a requirement to engage in direct action with a foreign nation. The President should not have the authority to unilaterally make these decisions. Checks and balances are in the Constitution for a reason.

Collin Richard Carlson, District 2: I support that Act, I am for completely disarming our nuclear arsenal.

Gary Franco, District 2: Unconstitutional!

Stonewall Jackson Bird (Stoney), District 2: Very good idea.

David McDevitt, District 3: I agree. 

Jered Gavin Bonneau, District 5: Congress has soul authority to vote on a declaration of war, however if North Korea were to preemptively strike the United States or attack our soldiers the President has the authority to act in defense by striking back. Should North Korea make credible threats, and posture to act upon those threats made against us, I think the President and his cabinet, specifically Gen. Mattis would have sufficient enough information on whether or not a strike is necessary to protect our country and our soldiers.

Tyler Myles Vega, District 6:  Strongly Support.

Richard Travis Reyes, District 8:  I agree however, Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution already states that ONLY Congress has the power to declare war. So this act is redunate. What we need are senators and congressmen/women who actually hold up their oath to support and defend the US Constitution and stop looking the other way no matter who is president.

Dr. Shannon Hader, District 8: I believe Congress needs to take back the power to authorize war.  This is true regardless of which party sits in the Oval Office. It’s extremely urgent now, given the chaotic, shoot-from-the-hip actions of President Trump toward foreign powers.  I support legislation that would keep us from jumping into North Korea with armed forces without a formal declaration of war from Congress.

Adam Smith, District 9:  I am in favor of tempering the likelihood of hostilities between the United States and North Korea. My concerns with the potentially disastrous outcomes of increased tensions between the United States and North Korea led me to introduce H.R. 4415, which seeks to establish the policy of the United States to not use nuclear weapons first. We must ensure that the United States is not a hostile nuclear aggressor.

Sarah Smith, District 9: I intend to co-sponsor it as soon as I am elected. I also believe no one person should have the power to declare war. The constitution explicitly states that the right to declare war stays with Congress.

Joseph Brumbles, District 10:  There should be no acts of war without congressional approval. With the exception of defending ourselves from an immediate attack. 

Tamborine Borrelli, District 10: I support Tulsi Gabbard in HR922 to put all acts of war back in Congressional hands. The last time Congress authorized war was 1941. We've been fighting abroad for central banking. Ron Paul said: "It is of no coincidence that the century of total war is the century of central banking ". It is also of no coincidence that North Korea has made concessions toward oil lines in the newly found peace. Rumsfeld started the North Korea's nuclear program with the likely end-game of war. The necessity of war to defend the Petro-Dollar starts with our economy which needs to be backed by real value. Congress also needs to regain its constitutional right to maintain currency value which was given away to the private banks called The Federal Reserve. Since inception of The Fed our currency has been devalued 98%. 

 

2. What are your views on President Trump's decision to withdraw the U.S. from the 2014 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action ("the Iran Deal")?

Adam Pilskog, District 1: I oppose most things that Trump has done since taking office, and although I do understand where he's coming from, his blatant disregard for tact and diplomacy is dangerous to our nation's security and future. I admire his perspective in preventing Iran from advancing their nuclear weapons technologies, but all indications show that the original deal from 2015 are successful at achieving the goal of prevention. Withdrawing from the deal creates more animus and tension with an already hostile nation.

Collin Richard Carlson, District 2: The Iran Deal took a lot of time and diplomacy to make happen, for Trump to just blindly jump in and pull us from the treaty was a MASSIVE step in the wrong direction.  The message it sent to Iran was that the USA can no longer be trusted to uphold any treaty attempt.

Gary Franco, District 2: I disagree with our President.

Stonewall Jackson Bird (Stoney), District 2: Very poor idea.

David McDevitt, District 3: I will always prefer diplomacy.  This decision was detrimental for our country.

Jered Gavin Bonneau, District 5: I support our President in this decision. Obama should have never brokered this deal, it was a massive mistake.

Tyler Myles Vega, District 6:  I think it's Insanity.

Richard Travis Reyes, District 8: We must pursue peace over war, however, the Iran Deal was struck by President Obama and once again like the declaration of war...illegal. It belongs to congress and congress only to make treaty's or "deals" with foreign governments. Per Article 1, Section 8.

Dr. Shannon Hader, District 8: One of my greatest concerns is a nuclear Iran. We must take every action to prevent this reckless and terroristic regime from obtaining such weapons, and while the built-in “sunset clause” of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was worrisome to me, the abandonment of the plan by President Trump is even more concerning. This misguided decision flies in the face of reason and is opposed by our allies, legislators on both sides of the aisle, and members of the President’s own cabinet. As a Congresswoman, I will work to prioritize a diplomatic approach to curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions and avoid a war of choice with Iran.

Adam Smith, District 9: I am extremely disheartened with President Trump’s decision to withdraw the U.S. from the 2014 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. This decision makes the United States, and the rest of the world, less safe, and contributes to worldwide instability. Unfortunately, through the President’s withdraw of the JCPOA, we have gone back on an important multilateral commitment, given Iran an increased reason to resume their efforts to acquire nuclear weapons, all while further isolating our country from our allies.

Sarah Smith, District 9: It was a terrible idea to withdraw from the Iran Deal. We have once again proven that our word counts for nothing. It discourages diplomacy with the U.S.

Joseph Brumbles, District 10:  I believe it was the best thing for America. Unfortunately it was a bad deal in the first place. 

Tamborine Borrelli, District 10: Iran is legitimately thinking about nuclear defense now that war seems inevitable. Iran is not only being sanctioned but America has threatened anyone doing business with Iran. Starving out Iran after breaking promises is in line with our dealings with Syria and North Korea: to put central banking in the last holdouts with independent currency. We are assuring war with Iran. We need to fix the economy and start waging peace. 

 

3. What are your views on the Trump Administration's 2018 Nuclear Posture Review which, among other things, proposes developing new, low yield submarine-launched nuclear weapons (the W76-2 Warhead)?

 

4. The United States is currently planning to rebuild our nation's nuclear arsenal (often called the "modernization" program), at an estimated cost of $1.2 trillion over 30 years.  What are your views on this plan?

 

5. Currently, the US President has sole authority to launch nuclear weapons. The Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017 (HR.669) would prohibit the President from using the Armed Forces to conduct a first use nuclear strike unless such strike is conducted pursuant to a Congressional declaration of war expressly authorizing such strike.  What are your views on this bill; or on the issue of Presidential authority to launch nuclear weapons? 

 

6. In 2017, the UN passed the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Currently, UN member countries are invited to ratify this treaty. What are your views on this treaty; or your opinion of whether the U.S. should ratify it? 

 

7. What actions, in your view, should be taken to address the health impacts of climate change and related issues in WA State, including air pollution, heat stress, and extreme weather events?  

 

8. What is your position on President Trump's decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement? 

 

9. What are your views on policies that place a price on carbon pollution, such as taxes, fees, or cap and trade programs? Alternatively, do you feel there is a preferable way to reduce green house gas emissions? 

Adam Pilskog, District 1: We do not need to invest financially or politically in nuclear proliferation. As we encourage other nations to denuclearize, we need to prepare to do so ourselves as well, so new nuclear weapons technology are not necessary.

Collin Richard Carlson, District 2: As I stated before, I think nuclear weapons are a waste of time and we need to completely eliminate them from our arsenal.

Gary Franco, District 2: Constitutionally we must provide for our “DOMESTIC DEFENSE, not aggressive offense,see the Preamble of our Founding Fathers requirements for the Congress.

Stonewall Jackson Bird (Stoney), District 2: We should be reducing the number and kind of nuclear weapons.

David McDevitt, District 3: I believe this is the wrong direction for our nation to pursue.

Jered Gavin Bonneau, District 5: I support our President in this decision. We must retake our place as a super power and as a country that will no longer bow and crumble to the threats of others.

Tyler Myles Vega, District 6:  Completely backwards and antithetical to true progress.  Valuable only to the super rich and most wicked amonst us.

Richard Travis Reyes, District 8: Personally, I think the nation needs to move away from Nuclear weapons and if we could get all nations of the world on board, ban Nuclear weapons from Planet Earth and future space colonization. However, in a world were we keep Nuclear weapons as deterrence I support producing low yield weapons that would be more focused for Military targets instead of mass causality's like our current weapon systems.

Dr. Shannon Hader, District 8: The US should not be in the position of fueling a nuclear arms race, by investments in more, new, “modernized” weapons and delivery systems, at a time when we still have a long ways to go to further reduce the worldwide nuclear arsenal.  The W76-2 is a warhead with such extreme power, it cannot be seen as a ‘deterrent’, but rather as an extreme offensive weapon.

Adam Smith, District 9: Although the United States must be able to protect itself against nuclear attacks, the Trump Administration’s 2018 Nuclear Posture Review is utterly ridiculous. This plan encourages the first use of nuclear weapons by the United States, while also developing new and unnecessary, nuclear weapons. The development of a new “low yield” submarine-launched nuclear weapon is a bad and dangerous idea; it only will help to encourage a nuclear arms race, which makes the United States, and the rest of the world, less safe, both now and in the long term. I have introduced legislation to establish a U.S. policy of no first use of nuclear weapons and as the Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee, have fought against plans to create the proposed W76-2 warhead.

Sarah Smith, District 9: I am against it. I would like to work towards complete de-nuclearization. I would rather we spend money on a federal jobs guarantee, tuition-free public colleges and trade schools, medicare for all, and infrastructure spending.

Joseph Brumbles, District 10:  I believe that we can and should be able to replace old technologies, with new technologies. However when it comes to nuclear, I do not believe that we should increase our inventory. 

Tamborine Borrelli, District 10: More nukes are not the answer. We need better military defense and better spending. Weapons manufactures have bought Congress for contracts that are not usable to the military giving us 90% surplus collecting dust in warehouses- some of it completely unusable. Rather we need to repeal Citizens United and have missile defense that can handle hyper-sonic nukes Russia and China have. We also need EMP weapons for air defense like Russia has. Our military needs to be used to honorably protect our people and not the special interests that buy government. 

 

 

Adam Pilskog, District 1: Not necessary, too much money. I support funding the military, but we need to approach that area of the budget more conservatively than we are. Military spending should be practical and in the interest of the American people (including currently service men and women and veterans). We don't need to spend exorbitant amounts of money on a nuclear arsenal.

Collin Richard Carlson, District 2: I think nuclear arms are a waste of money and we need to invest those funds into our countries infrastructure instead of nuclear weapons of any kind.

Gary Franco, District 2: We are neglecting our “domestic defense” and bankrupting ourselves with irrational offensive spending boondoggles!

Stonewall Jackson Bird (Stoney), District 2: Bad plan.

David McDevitt, District 3: I believe we should be reducing our arsenal, not increasing it.

Jered Gavin Bonneau, District 5: I agree with this program.

Tyler Myles Vega, District 6:  That money belongs to the people and should be used to address the common welfare and basic needs of said people.

Richard Travis Reyes, District 8: The weapons must be updated and check to ensure their safety and function. I support this but I think we could reduce this financial burden by reducing our Nuclear stock pile.

Dr. Shannon Hader, District 8: As mentioned above, at a time while we are still trying to reduce the overall worldwide nuclear arsenal, I have profound reservations about the “modernization program”—which includes as I understand it multiple elements of first-strike capacity, does not ‘bargain away’ or reduce existing arsenal as a trade off for select new weapons.

Adam Smith, District 9: The United States’ current plan to rebuild our nation’s nuclear arsenal is unaffordable and we cannot accomplish everything the current plans call for. This plan is also potentially dangerous in that it could lead to a new nuclear arms race, which would have very serious implications as countries like North Korea and others seek to assert their power on the international stage. We should not add more nuclear weapons to the United States’ already vast nuclear arsenal and should instead work toward reducing our country’s nuclear weapons. Current plans would also place an undue financial burden on our national budget and on Americans, whose taxes will have to pay for it; they will not provide a direct, tangible benefit, and the immense cost will sap resources from other vital government programs and even other more important security priorities.

Sarah Smith, District 9: I am against it.

Joseph Brumbles, District 10:  I support replacing old technology with new technology. However as stated before, I do not agree with increasing the nuclear arsenal overall. 

Tamborine Borrelli, District 10: We have plenty of nukes. We need: a good shield; usable weapons; to strip out the fat from weapons manufacturers; a new foreign policy that wages peace when possible; and care for our soldiers both in the field by using them for the American people as well as after where they have staggering suicide and homeless numbers. 

 

 

Adam Pilskog, District 1: Unilateral authority to launch nuclear weapons is a dangerous position to put anyone in regardless of their disposition, political beliefs, composure, or qualifications. Congressional authority must be achieved to make a decision of such dire ramifications. I support HR. 669. 

Collin Richard Carlson, District 2: I support this bill because I simply don't believe 1 man should ever have the capacity to bomb any country he deems is an enemy.

Gary Franco, District 2: These matters are clearly, the duty of the Congress. It is exsecutive overreach!

Stonewall Jackson Bird (Stoney), District 2: Good bill. The President's authority to launch nuclear weapons should be subject to the Constitutional limitation.

David McDevitt, District 3: I agree; The President should be restricted.

Jered Gavin Bonneau, District 5: If the use of nuclear weapons was ever needed to immediately defend our country and our citizens, waiting on an approval vote from Congress would prove to be devastating and could cost millions of citizens their lives.

Tyler Myles Vega, District 6:  The whole situation is ridiculous to the degree of resembling fiction.  The role of presdient is not designed to be anything of this nature.  The fact that he (and especially him specifically) has that power is a brutal attestation to how bad things have gotten.

Richard Travis Reyes, District 8: Nuclear weapons should never be a first strike option. All wars must be approved by Congress. The president should only respond in a defensive position!

Dr. Shannon Hader, District 8: I believe that a Congressional check on the executive authority in this case—launching of first use nuclear strike—is warranted.  

Adam Smith, District 9: I support establishing a policy of no first use and am very concerned with President Trump’s ability to independently launch nuclear weapons. For these reasons, I have introduced H.R. 4415, which seeks to establish the policy of the United States to not use nuclear weapons first. The United States must serve as a measured international leader on issues of nuclear weapons policy.

Sarah Smith, District 9: I am against using nuclear weapons at all. It is mutually-assured self destruction.

Joseph Brumbles, District 10:  I believe that it should be at the discretion of the president. Unfortunately this is a necessary exception. Getting congressional approval, can put us in danger, in certain time sensitive situations. That being said when it comes to nuclear weapons , we do not want to be hit first.

Tamborine Borrelli, District 10: Absolutely I support HR 699

 

 

Adam Pilskog, District 1: I am cynical as it seems to be a very ambitious treaty, and I don't believe we should ever sign a treaty that we aren't capable or don't have the intention of supporting. That said, I would love a comprehensive global de-nuclearization plan. There are numerous issues associated with this idea, and we could incentivize [cis] participation in this plan, but since all of the nuclear countries didn't sign it, the idea seems moot. 

Collin Richard Carlson, District 2: I think this treaty shows how mature other countries are about the dangers of nuclear weapons.  America has, for a long time now, refused to ratify this treaty and it shows our immaturity in a very serious matter.  We should ratify and disarm.

Gary Franco, District 2: Yes, ratify!

Stonewall Jackson Bird (Stoney), District 2: The U.S. should ratify it.

David McDevitt, District 3: I believe we should ratify the treaty.

Jered Gavin Bonneau, District 5: The United Nations is corrupt and destructive to our means as a free republic. The U.S. should withdraw conpletely from the U.N. and remove the U.N. from American soil. Furthermore, no treaty has authority or power over our Constitution, period.

Tyler Myles Vega, District 6:  Yes we should. 

Richard Travis Reyes, District 8: As stated above, I would agree but we need 100% world ratification. With UN oversight (a third party) To ensure that all nations comply.

Dr. Shannon Hader, District 8: I’ve spent a good amount of my career working internationally, using health diplomacy to both build our relationships with foreign governments and support programs to improve the health of their communities, as a US Government representative and in collaboration with our Department of State, US Ambassadors, and foreign service officers.  I’ve worked substantially with different elements of the UN, and have a strong working knowledge of the UN.

While I appreciate the intent of the Treaty, it is very much a symbolic call and I do not support US ratification of this treaty.  Real progress in disarmament must come from direct negotiation among nuclear powers and their allies. It’s telling that no current nuclear powers and no NATO partners have ratified the treaty.  I do believe, especially under future leadership, the US has a critical role to play in worldwide nuclear disarmament and the prevention of new nuclear powers. We will be more effective in those negotiations if not bound by a symbolic UN treaty.

Adam Smith, District 9: The world would be much safer with fewer nuclear weapons, and I believe that this treaty is an excellent first step. We must seek to prohibit unstable countries like Iran and North Korea from gaining further access to nuclear weapons, while also tempering our own President’s belligerent and threatening language. The United States should move towards reducing our own nuclear weapons supply, as our allies and adversaries must do the same.

Sarah Smith, District 9: Yes. In fact, in the forum put together by League of Women Voters I was the only candidate on the stage to say that the US should ratify it.

Joseph Brumbles, District 10:  I am not a big supporter of nuclear weapons. However to prohibit them completely, unfortunately will not happen overnight. I support the deduction of nuclear weapons, as long as the United States is not at risk because of it. 

Tamborine Borrelli, District 10: World annihilation serves no one. We need to de-escalte nuclear armament and reconsider the concept of armament. Turkey having been given more nuclear power than anyone in NATO Europe is a perfect example. Turkey has shot down Russian aircraft begging for World War. We also need to honor agreements from the eighties and stop war gaming on all the Russian borders. Their involvement in Syria and Crimea are a direct result of starting to pushback after time and time again we've expanded NATO bases around Russia. 

 

Adam Pilskog, District 1:  We need stronger regulations to protect the environment and combat climate change. Pursuing clean, renewable energy sources and protections of endangered and indicator species by reducing our industrial impact and dependency on fossil fuels is inevitable. We need to invest in this pathway now. 

Collin Richard Carlson, District 2:  I plan on creating the Department of Earth which is a Federal program aimed to do the job of "Super Fund" sites. Some of the funds will come from an aggressive carbon tax to force corporations to pay for the damage they are dealing.  I also want to restructure our agricultural industry and break up the big farms in place of small, local, eco-friendly cooperative farming. There are many things we can do with $4 trillion dollars and I plan to use every cent to reverse the damage we have done to our planet.

Gary Franco, District 2: All interests groups sit a the table of compromise to protect our invirement for the long range future and provide good paying jobs.

Stonewall Jackson Bird (Stoney), District 2: The main sources of green house gases in Washington State, as I understand it, are animal agriculture and transportation. Coal-burning power plants - in and out of the state - also add to the burden. All of these sources should be taxed at steadily increasing rates and ultimately banned. Sprawl is part of the problem.
Our accounting system needs to be revised to include costs to nature - in a currency acceptable to nature - and social costs. Both are presently ignored.

David McDevitt, District 3: I advocate addressing climate change aggressively; I also advocate a universal healthcare single payer system so ALL Americans can receive healthcare.

Jered Gavin Bonneau, District 5: Man made global warming is the biggest fraud in modern human history. Climate change is a natural occurance, which cannot be controlled by higher taxes, climate treaties and other riddiculous programs invented by con artist and money grabbers. I do supportvthe growth of clean energy, because it is sensible to creating cheaper energy and becoming energy independent as a nation.

Tyler Myles Vega, District 6:  The list is long.  But for starters we could stop heavily subsidizing big oil and auto and start subsidizing green infrastructure at the same level.  Green new deal is the new buzz.

Richard Travis Reyes, District 8: Not only for our planet but also for our increasing debt, taxes, and finical burden of government on the people. I believe we should support going 100% export on our fossil fuels and converting US federal and state buildings/roads etc to full solar/wind power. We would decrease the cost of government, lower our debt, lower our burden on tax payers, and at the same time update our failing national power grid. Our power grid is one of the United States biggest weakness from a military and civilian stand point. The federal government should go off the grid.

Dr. Shannon Hader, District 8:  Across our “purple” district (a blend of democrats and republicans), we are united in our connection to the land, air, and water – and in recognition that global climate change is REAL and will continue to have devastating effects on our world and region if we do not reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote green energy without burdening our farmers and small businesses.

In Congress, I will promote comprehensive climate change reform, de-incentivize fossil fuel production while incentivizing alternative clean energy, and invest in technology and infrastructure that will support a bright, clean future. Further, I will work to protect the health of our citizens by spearheading science-based research and response to combat the effects of climate change on our people and communities and will institute policies and funding resources that will help prevent, lessen, and recover from the kinds of climate impacts that we are already experiencing, such as the devastating impact of wildfires in the Pacific Northwest.  Immediate investment in mitigation is warranted—we are already experiencing climate effects, and too often we are asking individuals—especially marginalized people—to bare both the risk and the burden of what is a societally-driven problem.

Adam Smith, District 9: Combating the climate crisis and ensuring clean air, water, and reduced levels of pollution are critical to the health and well-being of not just Washington State and American families, but the environment in which we live and the world at large. Climate change is a major concern and I support measures that reduce climate-impacting emissions in addition to those that protect the quality of our air and water. The impacts of climate change, air pollution, poor water quality, and other environmental hazards have a disproportionate impact on communities of color and low-income communities. I continue to support programs and policies aimed at reducing this environmental inequity, and we must seek environmental justice as we work to address climate change and its impacts on our communities. Since so many of our environmental challenges stem from our energy policy decisions, I am also focused on ensuring we invest in clean energy and energy efficiency technologies that will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels that harm our environment. It is critical that we take steps now to protect our environment and vulnerable communities across the world from the very real and dangerous effects of climate change. I support an energy plan that focuses on the long term energy needs of our country and the world, as well as the health of our environment. A balanced approach must take into account, and then reduce, our current dependency on fossil fuels. Scientific evidence has shown that burning fossil fuels releases carbon into our atmosphere, which directly contributes to the environmental damages associated with climate change. We need to harness the technologies of the future, make our current energy use far more efficient, and develop new, cleaner sources of energy. Throughout my time in Congress, I have advocated for improving environmental standards, assisting wildlife and ecosystems threatened by global warming, and requiring the U.S. to engage with other nations to reduce emissions through an international incentive program. I will continue to work to reduce our country's dependence on fossil fuels, compel the Congress to hold hearings and debates on the science of and solutions to the climate crisis, and ultimately act on clean energy and climate legislation to ensure the well being of future generations.

Sarah Smith, District 9: Invest in updating our infrastructure to meet the needs of changing climate. Mitigate some contamination by building urban tree covers and rooftop gardens. Investing in electrical vehicle infrastructure and public transportation.

Joseph Brumbles, District 10:  We should continue to monitor , and and we should have a committee with our best people regarding. We should react accordingly, and utilize realisitic and measurable solutions. However not at the expense of the people, not at a sacrifice to Liberty. Not with outrageous taxes and costs to the people. 

Tamborine Borrelli, District 10: Flat carbon tax as opposed to cap and trade. Cap and trade means creating carbon credits for a secondary futures market as the rate varies. Whenever secondary futures markets arise so do investment bankers often at the cost of the economy. 

 

Adam Pilskog, District 1: I oppose his decision. Climate change is a threat that should rattle the economic sensibilities of the Republican party as it scientifically is threatening the future of humanity. Climate change is costly and worth investing in a fight. Global cooperation is necessary, prudent, and healthy. We should not be ostracizing our friends, neighbors, and allies. 

Collin Richard Carlson, District 2:  This was one of the stupidest things Donald Trump has done.  The Paris Agreement was not an enforceable treaty, it merely set goals for countries to strive for.  Trump could have stay in the treaty and simply ignored it.  But his pulling out of the treaty shows his absolute refusal to acknowledge or deal with a very serious situation.

Gary Franco, District 2: I lean toward our citizens resolving these important matters.

Stonewall Jackson Bird (Stoney), District 2: Very poor decision.

David McDevitt, District 3:  I oppose this decision and believe we should rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement.

Jered Gavin Bonneau, District 5: I agree with our President 100%.

Tyler Myles Vega, District 6:  Words don't do it justice.

Richard Travis Reyes, District 8: I supported this because the Paris Climate agreement was not in the best interest of the country, upon reading it, I saw it neglected the biggest polluters outside of the United States such as India and China. Any climate agreement needs to be embraced worldwide by ALL industrialized nations. Either we can be all in, or not.

Dr. Shannon Hader, District 8: I strongly oppose the President’s withdrawal from the pact. The United States must remain known as an active and enthusiastic proponent of the Paris Climate Agreement, not only to emphasize the importance of the future health of our planet, but also to make sure that America is the leading voice in environmental policy.

Adam Smith, District 9: The United States’ departure from this agreement almost guarantees that, under the Trump Administration, we will not be a global leader working with other countries to address climate change, one of the most important challenges facing the world. Instead of taking a backseat, the United States should be at the forefront of reducing our own pollution levels and bringing other countries to the table to do the same.

Sarah Smith, District 9: I am against it. Even though the Paris Climate Agreement didn't go far enough, it was an important step forward in working together as a global community to combat climate change

Joseph Brumbles, District 10: I agree , I believe it cost us too much for too little. 

Tamborine Borrelli, District 10: Dow chemical gave Trump one million dollars and Congress 14 million to spread pesticides made from Nazi nerve gas. Scott Pruit's destruction of the EPA is a national embrassment. Exxon, Dow, Bayer and Goldman Sachs have been running government to the destruction of our world and peoples for 40 years (some longer) and it's way past time that came to an end. 

 

Adam Pilskog, District 1: I don't support cap and trade because that is granting a certain allowance, and if the goal is reduction, we should be tightening the noose on carbon pollution to force innovation. Necessity is the mother of invention, and demand for products will spawn innovative ways to achieve supply. Taxes are the most effective way to ensure compliance or force companies out of business. I don't have a preferable way to reduce green house emissions because environmental responsibility is in conflict with shareholder responsibility, so regulation is the only way to achieve large-scale compliance. 

Collin Richard Carlson, District 2: Taxing is one of the best ways to reduce carbon emissions.  I support any legislation aimed at reducing emissions, whether it's a tax, a cap, fees or fines.  We have already destroyed this world for the Millennial generation, if we continue down this road Millennial's children will have no chance. 

Gary Franco, District 2: No answer

Stonewall Jackson Bird (Stoney), District 2: These are a start, but not nearly enough. See my comment on a new accounting system that acknowledges all the costs (not just in money) of our economic activities.

David McDevitt, District 3: It would be worth attempting to implement. I advocate strong approaches to increase use of renewable energy, including tax incentives for solar, wind, and hydro;  At the same time, we should be reducing subsidies for fossil fuel and non-food farm products.

Jered Gavin Bonneau, District 5: Carbon pricing is riddiculous, crippling and does nothing to combate the naturally occurring climate change. These con artists wish to tax individuals for sinply being alive, they wish to tax rural communities for growing crops and raising cattle, they wish to profit off of our hard earned money by creating taxes for an extremely fraudulent and scientifically unsound theory such as man made global warming. I do agree with searching for and supporting clean, renewable energy while supporting our current energy industries.

Tyler Myles Vega, District 6:  Generallt support, but it has to be done right.  Initiatives in the ppasr, for example, have been defeated for their impact on disadvantaged sectors of society or other flaws. 1634 has my full support.  

Richard Travis Reyes, District 8: Not the biggest fan as it creates an artificial trade market which become corrupt and exploited. And honestly guys, if Yellowstone erupts or if for example where I live, Washington State we have the Juan De Fuca plate. When, not if, this plate slides it will not only destroy everything west of I5, it will make the entire cascade range to drop 4-15 meters. There are 18 volcanos on this range, that could trigger a mass eruption and drop Earth into a mini-ice age. We should reduce our harm to the environment but not in such as wait as it hurts those who are the poorest and weakest in our society's because ultimately we are at the mercy of Mother Nature. No matter how much technology we posses.

Dr. Shannon Hader, District 8: I do support “putting a price on carbon” while also incentivizing the production of clean energy.   I don’t think any of us know the ‘perfect mix’ or approach yet, but I support approaches that are more likely to translate to a stable international market and participation, which seems to be more likely with a carbon tax/price on carbon.  This also then does not limit the incentivization of clean energy at national or state levels—as is projected to happen in cap and trade programs with firm caps. I am a firm believer that our approach must translate over time to an effective international dialogue and ‘world movement’ to reduce carbon pollution.  As policies are implemented, we must also ensure we are monitoring the intended and unintended consequences, so that we can build on and refine approaches over time based on real world impact.

Adam Smith, District 9: Carbon pollution is a serious problem and I am very concerned about its impacts. I support measures to reduce carbon pollution, including through market-based mechanisms such as cap and trade systems, carbon fees, and taxes. I support further research and informed debate about how best to achieve reduced carbon emissions, and to begin to do so as soon as possible. I also recognize that there are potentially other preferable or more optimatal ways to reduce emissions, including combinations of approaches that involve regulation, the pricing of carbon, carbon trading, as well as new technologies and green energy that can remove or prevent the release of carbon from the atmosphere. The federal government has an important role to play in all of these areas, including through smart regulation, investment in basic research, and establishing systems to appropriately price and disincentive carbon emissions. I will continue to support these priorities and work to reduce these emissions into the atmosphere. It is imperative that as we work to reduce carbon emissions, we also ensure that environmental justice is achieved for all Americans, including people and communities of color. I will continue to work to ensure that clean air and water are basic rights for all Americans.

Sarah Smith, District 9: I don't think cap and trade does anything to combat climate climate change. We are basically saying if you "buy" enough green energy credits, you can continue polluting our climate. As with carbon tax, it depends on who is taxed. If it is the corporation doing the pollution is taxed, it is a good place to start, but ultimately, we must rapidly move towards 100% renewable energy. I would end subsidies for fossil fuel companies and subsidize green energy infrastructure.

Joseph Brumbles, District 10:  I do not agree. I believe that it is a wealth redistribution scheme. I am Pro clean energy, but not at the cost of the people, or Liberty. We can have clean energy through technological advances and the utilization of the free market. We do not need to penalize people with a carbon tax, a tripled energy bill, etc. As that will greatly increase burden & lower quality of life. 

Tamborine Borrelli, District 10: Aside from flat tax we need better jobs programs. A big foundation in those programs will be millions employed coverting to green energy.