Methodology

This report provides a side-by-side comparison of the major presidential candidates' views on a range of energy and related environmental policy issues. The issues addressed include climate change, ethanol subsidies, nuclear power, utility restructuring, fossil fuels, clean air, energy efficiency, renewable energy, and automobile fuel efficiency. For the most part, the candidates' views are expressed in their own words as provided in their campaign materials, media and other public statements, and responses to a 15-question survey sponsored by the member groups of the Sustainable Energy Coalition and more than 150 other organizations nationwide representing 35 states (a list of the sponsoring groups is included at the end of this report).

The survey was sent on August 19, 1999 to Vice President Al Gore, former Senator Bill Bradley, Texas Governor George Bush, Senator John McCain, former ambassador Alan Keyes, former Reagan Administration official Gary Bauer, publisher Steve Forbes, Senator Bob Smith, commentator Pat Buchanan, and former cabinet secretary Elizabeth Dole. It was subsequently sent to Senator Orrin Hatch as well as to Natural Law Party candidate John Hagelin; Green Party candidates Ralph Nader, Stephen Gaskin, and Joel Kovel; Reform Party candidate Donald Trump; U.S. Taxpayers Party candidate Howard Phillips; and, very recently, Democratic Party candidate Lyndon LaRouche.

In response, the Bradley campaign sent a 3-page letter on October 4. John McCain sent a 1-page letter on October 18. The Hagelin campaign submitted a completed survey on October 20. Joel Kovel and Stephen Gaskin submitted completed surveys in mid-December. The Keyes campaign submitted a completed survey on January 6. The Gore campaign submitted a completed survey on January 10. Elizabeth Dole and Bob Smith have dropped out of the presidential campaign. The Trump campaign and Ralph Nader responded that they would not respond at this time because they have not yet formally announced their candidacies. The Bush, Buchanan, and Forbes campaigns said they were unwilling to respond to the survey. Notwithstanding dozens of written, telephone, e-mail, and faxed requests, the Hatch, Bauer, and Phillips campaigns have failed to provide any form of response.

This report provides the full text of the candidates responses to the survey questions. Their answers are supplemented by public statements made by the candidates in their campaign materials and as reported by the major media.

Executive Summary

The following is a side-by-side comparison of the major presidential candidates' views on a range of energy and related environmental policy issues. For the most part, the candidates' views are expressed in their own words as provided in their campaign materials, media and other public statements, and responses to a survey sponsored by the member groups of the Sustainable Energy Coalition and more than 150 other organizations nationwide representing 35 states.

Federal Budget Support for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Among the Democrats, Vice President Al Gore stresses that he "has been a long-time supporter of increasing funding for the energy efficiency and renewable energy programs of the Department of Energy ... [and] has helped win significant increases for research in energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies;" he promises to continue his "commitment to address the international challenge of global warming with new technologies such as biomass." Former Senator Bill Bradley speaks more generally of his "support [for] the widest possible mix of energy sources, including gains in energy efficiency in order to reduce our dependence on insecure source of fuel and to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and conventional pollutants."

Among the Republicans, Senator John McCain is the most vocal advocate for sustainable energy programs noting that "we should encourage energy efficiency and focus research and development on technologies that will help meet the environmental needs of the next century." He adds that he "strongly supports renewable energy [because] America should lead in the development and promotion of technology that will provide the world with efficient, clean, and renewable energy sources." Furthermore, he says that he has "supported federal funding for the research and development of solar and renewable energy" and has urged that "a greater amount of the $80 billion annually appropriated by Congress for government-funded research and development [be] dedicated to environmental R&D." Texas Governor George Bush has spoken more sparingly, promising only "to spend money on research and development to find additional uses for agricultural products" including biomass; he has also proposed switching to a two-year budgeting cycle.

However, publisher Steve Forbes has made it clear that he wants federal spending capped and has earlier noted that "additional cuts may be needed" in the U.S. Department of Energy's sustainable energy programs. Forbes has further called for the abolition of the "unnecessary and bloated" Department of Energy altogether. Former ambassador Alan Keyes has similarly said that he favors cuts in the Department of Energy's budget for its energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. Senator Orrin Hatch and former Reagan Administration official Gary Bauer have offered no positions to date on the issue.

Among third party candidates, Reform Party candidate Patrick Buchanan has said he supports further cuts in the Department of Energy's sustainable energy budget while developer Donald Trump has offered no opinion. Natural Law Party candidate John Hagelin stresses that "basic research and development funding on energy alternatives such as fuel cells and solar and wind energy is key to a clean energy future for the nation." Among the Green Party's presidential candidates, both Joel Kovel and Stephen Gaskin support increasing funding for sustainable energy programs.

Federal Tax Support for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Gore believe "tax incentives for alternative sources of energy are needed to help level the playing field with conventional fuels" and notes that he has "already proposed a package of [tax] incentives to try to speed up the introduction of new technologies for renewable sources of energy ... [as well as] for equipment such as heat pumps, natural gas water heaters, advanced central air conditioners, fuel cells, and rooftop solar systems." He adds that he "strongly supports" giving "companies incentives in the form of tax credits [and] federal purchasing policies" to use "products that clean the environment - such as renewable energy products, and alternative fuel vehicles." Bradley similarly supports "giving corporations incentives for taking voluntary actions, in advance of [Kyoto] treaty ratification, to help reverse our increasing levels of greenhouse gas emissions."

Hatch has introduced legislation that would create a 50 cents/gallon tax credit for the purchase of alternative fuels such as hydrogen and provides tax credits for the purchase of alternative-fuel and electric vehicles. While McCain notes his support for "legislation that would promote the purchase and use of alternatively fueled vehicles," he has opposed tax breaks for ethanol production or "for pork barrel spending" to help poultry farmers generate electricity from manure. However, McCain has also promised to "permanently extend existing R&D tax credits in order to spur corporations to invest in important environment research projects." Keyes notes that he does not support federal tax incentives to promote sustainable energy technologies while Bauer is urging the elimination of "special interest deductions ... such as [for] tools, factories, and buildings." Bush, and Forbes have not directly addressed tax support for sustainable energy programs but all three have put forth tax cut proposals that could be expected to squeeze funding available for energy efficiency and renewable energy.

Buchanan and Trump have not addressed this issue. Kovel and Gaskin favor such tax incentives while Hagelin has expressed support for the wind and biomass production tax credits but "would prefer to tax polluting technologies rather than to offer incentives to clean energy technologies."

Federal Tax Incentives for Ethanol Production

Among the Democrats, Vice President Al Gore maintains that "it's well known that I've always supported ethanol" adding that the "ethanol tax credit helps to encourage domestic investment in ethanol production facilities, increases farm income, stimulates employment, and improves the trade balance." Gore goes on to tweak his primary opponent Senator Bill Bradley by adding that "I have not ducked when votes for ... agricultural interests were on the floor."

Bradley, however, has responded that he has altered his views on ethanol. "When I was in the Senate, I represented my state [and had] very specific New Jersey-based reasons" for opposing federal tax breaks for ethanol. Now, though, he believes "for farmers in the Midwest, ethanol makes sense" and has vowed "no raids on ethanol" in his administration because "ethanol is an important part of the reformulated gasoline program in the country and it will remain so."

Among the Republicans, Texas Governor George W. Bush says that he "supports tax incentives for use of ethanol [because] not only is it good for the farmer, it is good for the quality of air all across America." Similarly, Reagan Administration official Gary Bauer notes that "we need to continue the ethanol subsidy, which has brought additional marketing options to American corn growers." And Senator Orrin Hatch agrees that "we have to develop as many alternative sources of gasoline as we possibly can; some day it might come down to where we're going to need this ethanol development to save our country so I think it's very wise to continue to support it."

On the other hand, Senator John McCain has derided ethanol tax incentives as "simply an outdated subsidy for corn producers [and] an example of the influence of special interests in Washington." He adds that "ethanol is good for neither the environment nor the consumer" and that the subsidy should be eliminated to help pay for a school voucher program he has proposed to offer educational opportunities for disadvantaged children.

Publisher Steve Forbes is reportedly critical of ethanol tax incentives but will support the current ethanol tax breaks for about seven more years while preparing the industry to live without them. Ambassador Alan Keyes says he does not support continuation of federal tax incentives for ethanol and has stated his opposition to unspecified "short-sighted socialists policies" in farm aid as well as advocated a simplified tax system as well as the elimination of most special interest tax breaks, which would presumably include tax incentives for ethanol production.

Among third party candidates, the Reform Party's Pat Buchanan has stated his "support [for] ethanol production as integral to a policy of national energy independence" and cited an Iowa ethanol production facility he recently visited as "an example of American efficiency." Green Party candidates Joel Kovel and Stephen Gaskin also support federal tax incentives for ethanol. By contrast, Natural Law Party candidate John Hagelin says he opposes continuation of the federal tax incentives for ethanol; however, he "would support research on biofuels as a transition technology but would prefer to support fuels and technologies without carbon emissions and other forms of pollution."

Efficiency & Renewables - Electric Utility Restructuring

Most of the Democratic or Republican candidates have not addressed proposals to promote renewable energy in the context of federal electric utility restructuring via a Renewable Portfolio Standard [RPS] (e.g., mandating that 7.5% of the nation's electricity be generated by non-hydro renewables by 2010). However, Alan Keyes says he does not support an RPS while Al Gore says that he does.

Natural Law Party candidate John Hagelin says that a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) "is essential in the next decade to aid the startup of renewables in becoming a major energy source; after 10 to 15 years, when renewables become a significant part of our energy portfolio, these incentives should be removed." Green Party candidates Stephen Gaskin and Joel Kovel both support the RPS proposal.

Most of the two major party candidates have not stated their views on including a small wires charge (say 2-3%) in federal utility restructuring legislation to maintain funding of energy efficiency, low-income weatherization and energy assistance, and renewable energy research, development, demonstration, and deployment programs. However, Keyes says he does not support such a wires charge while Gore says that he does.

Hagelin and Gaskin both express their support for it but Kovel says that "these costs should [not] be passed along to consumers, especially by such means, which would be disproportionately burdensome on poor people; the costs should be borne by large utilities and energy corporations." Reform Party candidates Patrick Buchanan and Donald Trump have offered no views on either of these issues.

Automobile Fuel Efficiency Standards

Among the Democrats, former Senator Bill Bradley has expressed his support for strengthening Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFE) standards "over time" and extending those now covering passenger cars to include light trucks and Sport Utility Vehicles as well. During the recent Senate debate on a rider to the Transportation Appropriations bill that would continue the five-year moratorium that blocks tighter CAFE standards, Bradley declared it to be "a particularly offensive rider" and urged his former colleagues in the Senate to reject it (and 40 Senators did subsequently vote to oppose the rider).

When the CAFE rider was ultimately included in the transportation bill, Vice President Al Gore reportedly recommended to President Clinton that he veto the measure but the White House ignored his recommendation. Previously, Gore had resisted calls by the environmental community to press for stricter CAFE standards opting instead to "join with the Big Three automakers to create the Public/Private Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles [designed] to help industry efforts to triple the fuel-efficiency of today's vehicles." Most recently, he has noted that "with respect to specific Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards for the year 2010, I believe it is premature to set a specific standard until the rulemaking process required by law has taken place."

Among the Republicans, publisher Steve Forbes recently has stated his opposition generally to "old Soviet-style command-and-control" regulations and earlier to setting higher CAFE standards specifically. Ambassador Alan Keyes has charged that "CAFE kills 2,000 - 4,000 people a year by making larger, safer cars less affordable; it's an assault on the family car and should be abolished." Even though the Houston areas this year has experienced more severe smog problems than Los Angeles, recording eight of the ten highest ozone pollution peaks in the country, Governor George Bush has opted to sidestep the question of CAFE standards noting "I intend to work with the automobile manufacturers on a reasonable plan; I haven't taken a position yet and don't intend to for a while" although a campaign spokesperson adds that Bush believes the current standards to be "reasonable."

Senator Orrin Hatch voted against a resolution that would have directed the Senate conferees for the Transportation Appropriations bill to oppose the CAFE-freeze rider. Senator John McCain was not present for that vote but earlier chose to withhold his name from a Senate letter to the White House urging it to resist the CAFE rider. However, McCain has reportedly expressed an interest in holding hearings next year in the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee which he chairs on the issue of increasing CAFE standards. Former Reagan Administration official Gary Bauer has offered no position statements on CAFE or related transportation issues.

Among third party aspirants, Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan has expressed his general opposition in the past to tightening CAFE standards while Natural Law Party candidate John Hagelin says he supports raising CAFE standards to a combined fleet average of at least 42 mpg by 2010. Among the Green Party candidates, Joel Kovel notes that he "would definitely go further ... [possibly] as high as 70 mpg--or more" while Stephen Gaskin likewise expresses support for "stronger standards."

Other Transportation Options

Generally, the Democratic presidential candidates have been more forthcoming than the Republicans in offering proposals to address other transportation issues. Gore has called for "investing in mass transit and light rail and [for] helping communities develop alternatives to clogged highways [including] walkable, bikeable neighborhoods" as part of a broader initiative addressing the problem of suburban sprawl. Bradley wants "to get car owners to get old clunkers off the road ... and to encourage the production and use of cleaner cars" as well as "improve mobility for everyone but in less environmentally damaging ways."

Hatch acknowledges that "automobiles are a major source of urban pollution" and has proposed tax credits -- rather than federal mandates -- for the purchase of alternative fuels "such as hydrogen, natural gas, propane, methanol, and electricity" as well as for the purchase of electric and alternative fuel vehicles. McCain has also expressed support for developing alternative fuels to reduce pollution (although he opposes continuing the federal ethanol tax credit) and has called for strengthening emissions controls on all gasoline or diesel-powered engines, including cars and trucks. Bush notes that he would "support cleaner gasoline standards across the country" while Forbes and Keyes have offered no further transportation policy views.

While Buchanan has been silent on other transportation issues, Hagelin believes that "basic research and development funding on energy alternatives such as fuel cells is key to a clean energy future for the nation."

Nuclear Power and Nuclear Waste

Among the Democrats, Al Gore says he does "not support an increased reliance on nuclear power for electricity generation" but would "[leave decisions about constructing new plants to public utility commissions ... [and] keep open the option of relicensing nuclear power plants" as long as they "can reliably meet strict health and safety standards." Bill Bradley, however, has not stated whether he favors the construction of new nuclear power plants or the relicensing of existing nuclear plants in the United States. Republicans George Bush, Gary Bauer, Orrin Hatch, and John McCain have been similarly silent. However, Steve Forbes says he does support the construction of new plants. Alan Keyes also supports new plant construction as well as the relicensing of existing plants but "not as a mandatory requirement [and] provided the nuclear plants are not built with tax dollars."

Among the Reform Party candidates, Pat Buchanan favors the construction of new plants while Donald Trump has stated no position. Natural Law Party candidate opposes both the construction of new plants and relicensing of existing plants noting that "as a nuclear physicist, I must unequivocally state that we cannot expand our investment in nuclear power plants unless and until a safe and economically sound method of storing or treating long-lived, toxic nuclear waste is found. Green Party candidates Stephen Gaskin and Joel Kovel both oppose new construction or relicensing with Kovel adding that he supports "the dismantling of all nuclear plants with maximum feasible rapidity; the industry should bear all costs just as they have made the profits.

Most of the Democratic, Republican, or Reform party candidates have not indicated whether they support provisions in proposed federal electric utility restructuring legislation that would enable electric utilities to recover the cost of uneconomic nuclear power investments from their customers. Gore believes "some recovery of stranded costs is appropriate and necessary as we move toward a deregulated utility sector in which guaranteed recovery of costs through rate regulation is no longer available." Keyes notes that he opposes stranded cost recovery but adds that he "also opposes mandatory open access [and] favors eliminating state-chartered territorial monopoly franchises." Among the Green Party candidates, Gaskin has offered no position while Kovel has expressed his opposition. However, Natural Law Party candidate Hagelin "would allow utilities to recover their stranded investment in nuclear plants by interim licensing for operation and spent fuel storage in exchange for an agreement by the utility to increase its renewable energy portfolio" as was done in Minnesota.

Among the Democratic, Republican, and Reform Party candidates, Gore says that "until the scientific analysis of the Yucca Mountain site is completed, it is premature to make a determination about its use as a disposal site." Keyes says he supports establishing a high-level nuclear waste facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada while Forbes has said that he is "undecided." None of the other candidates have expressed any views on the issue. Green Party candidate Kovel has expressed his opposition while Gaskin has offered no position. Natural Law Party candidate Hagelin "would support funding for the immediate containment of spillage from our antiquated, inevitably dangerous storage facilities, followed by systematic cleanup of these facilities and long-term research on technologies for stabilization and neutralization of long-lasting nuclear wastes."

Finally, none of the Democratic, Republican, or Reform Party candidates other than Keyes have expressed any views on the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's pending policy to recycle radioactive waste from nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants into consumer products. Keyes supports the policy observing that "these metals have no more radioactivity than the background environment, and hence pose no human health risk; allowing private companies to acquire these materials would save the U.S. Treasury and the American taxpayer half a billion dollars in avoided disposal costs." Green Party candidates Gaskin and Kovel as well as Natural Law Party candidate have all expressed their opposition to the proposal.

Fossil Fuels & Clean Air

Noting that old fossil fuel plants "must do more to meet modern standards," Bradley says he "would support legislation limiting power plant emissions of carbon dioxide [as well as] additional efforts to ensure that all Americans breathe healthful air [including] the new ambient air quality standards adopted by EPA and the efforts to reduce levels of NOx. Gore speaks more generally about the need to "continue the push for increasing air quality standards" but agrees that "cleaning up 'grandfathered' power plants ... is a necessary component of any plan to ensure clean, healthy air for all American citizens." He embraces the Clinton Administration's recently-announced "strong clean air standards for soot and smog that will prevent up to 15,000 premature deaths a year and improve the lives of millions with respiratory illnesses."

Bush, who has created a voluntary program for reducing emissions from older fossil fuel plants in Texas, says he "supports cleaner gasoline standards across the country" and that "we ought to look at a national standard for lower sulfide for gasoline." Expressing general support for "clean air, safe water, and the gifts of unspoiled creation," McCain nonetheless says "it's time to comprehensively review out nation's environmental laws to assure they are relevant to today's needs and capabilities ... and for seeking ways to make them more sensible and less costly."

Criticizing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for "too often resort[ing] to junk science," Forbes says that "the free market incentives in the 1990 Clean Air Act are a step in the right direction [but] before tightening standards, we must be sure of the soundness of the science involved." Keyes says he does not support requiring all fossil-fueled power plants to meet the same clean air emissions standards met by new plants today. Hatch has noted only that "all of us believe in clean air, clean water, and a better quality of life" while Bauer has offered no position on the issue.

Green Party candidates Gaskin and Kovel as well as Natural Law Party candidate Hagelin all support requiring all fossil-fueled power plants to meet the same clean air emissions standards as those met by new plants built today while Reform Party candidates Buchanan Trump have put forth no position statements.

Incentives for Fossil Fuel Development

Democrat Bradley says he would repeal two provisions enacted in 1990 to benefit the oil industry -- one which reduced the Alternative Minimum Tax for oil and gas operators' intangible drilling costs and a second which gives a 15% tax credit for enhanced oil recovery costs beyond the normal tax breaks for drilling operations. Stressing that he supports "a balanced energy policy that reduces environmental impacts while creasing jobs and energy independence," Gore "believes that maintaining tax incentives for the production of U.S. coil, oil, and natural gas can help ensure that domestic markets for these products will be supplied from domestic sources."

Republicans Bauer, and Hatch have been silent about whether they would increase, decrease, or maintain current levels of federal tax support for fossil fuels; and Bush has spoken only generally about avoiding "price controls." Keyes supports reducing the current level of tax support for the fossil fuel industry. However, Forbes says that he would abolish the capital gains tax to encourage more exploration while McCain notes that he has "worked to end corporate welfare enjoyed by certain fossil fuel industries, most recently offering an amendment to end oil and gas subsidies."

Reform Party candidates Buchanan and Trump have not addressed the issue but Natural Law Party candidate Hagelin stresses that "there are well-thought-out solutions that can end fossil fuel subsidies without jeopardizing the industries that are energy and fuel dependent. Among the Green Party candidates, Gaskin would reduce subsidies for the fossil fuel industries while Kovel stipulates that "tax incentives would be given [only] as a quid pro quo for conservation, and especially for conversion to renewable source."

Oil Drilling

Among the Democrats, Vice President Al Gore has promised to "put a stop to all new oil drilling in federal waters off the shores of California and Florida [as well as] fight to prevent oil drilling in federal waters off all states where the public clearly opposes it -- even if companies already have been granted offshore leases." He adds that "as President, I would veto any legislation that attempted to open the Arctic Refuge to oil exploration and drilling." Former senator Bill Bradley notes that he "fought against opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil, gas, and mineral development" and is proposing "the creation of a Coastal and Ocean Conservation Fund that would provide greater authority to states for coastal protection" including decisions affecting oil drilling off their shores.

Among the Republicans, Texas Governor George Bush notes that while he "would encourage exploration" particularly for natural gas, he supports the existing moratorium on California and Florida offshore oil drilling. Senator John McCain, who criticized the Clinton Administration for its decision to extend 36 offshore oil leaves along the central California coast over the objections of that state's Governor and Attorney General, has promised to "never lose sight of the fundamental principle that federal land management decisions affecting local communities must be made in cooperation with the Americans who call those communities home."

However, publisher Steve Forbes says he would open ANWR to oil exploration and drilling as well as "open up the [strategic] oil reserve." Former ambassador Alan Keyes similarly favors opening up ANWR (or at least not permanently protecting it from development) while Senator Orrin Hatch and former Reagan Administration official Gary Bauer have offered no views on the issue.

Among Reform Party candidates, columnist Pat Buchanan favors opening ANWR to oil drilling but developer Donald Trump has offered no position. Natural Law Party candidate John Hagelin would permanently protect ANWR from future oil exploration and drilling as would Green Party candidates Stephen Gaskin and Joel Kovel with the latter noting that such a policy would "put pressure on the oil companies to convert to sustainable energy."

General Views on Climate Change

Democrats Bill Bradley and Al Gore emphatically agree that climate change is a matter of major concern with Gore stressing that "there is overwhelming scientific consensus that human activity is contributing to global warming ... which can lead to serious public health consequences ... and extreme weather" while Bradley notes that it is a "serious problem" that "we need to confront ... without further delay."

Leading Republican candidates take a more skeptical view with George Bush saying that while he "believe[s] there is global warming," he adds that "both the causes and the impact of this slight warming are uncertain." John McCain acknowledges that "a growing number of scientists believe that global climate change is a real phenomenon" but adds that the issue must be viewed as "scientific question, not a political question." Orrin Hatch merely acknowledges that he "appreciate[s] the global challenges we face in protecting our environment."

However, Steve Forbes dismisses the issue altogether saying that "the catastrophic claims about global warming are deeply flawed; ... there is no real evidence that the world is heading into an age of super-heated temperatures." Similarly, Gary Bauer believes "the scientific evidence supporting the theory of global warming is ambiguous and inconclusive" while Alan Keyes criticizes climate change forecasts as being "hubris of high order" and suggests that "human activity is causing a modest and beneficial regional warming of Siberia and the Northwest North America."

Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan doubts the "apocalyptic forecasts" noting that "Earth's temperature has risen only half a degree Celsius since 1870." However, Natural Law Party candidate John Hagelin accepts climate change as being "the consensus of the vast majority of atmospheric, geological, and environmental scientists" while Green Party candidate Joel Kovel says "the evidence is overwhelming" -- a view echoed by fellow Green Party candidate Stephen Gaskin.

The Kyoto Treaty

As for solutions, both Bradley and Gore support Senate ratification of the Kyoto Protocol with Gore seeing it as "an historic achievement" and taking credit for having "gone to Japan to help ensure successful negotiation" of the treaty "in an environmentally strong and economically sound way." He notes the "need to ensure greater participation on the part of key developing countries" and to design "market-based mechanisms [that] get us the most environmental cleanup possible for each available dollar invested." Bradley agrees that the Kyoto Protocol should be ratified "as an important first step" to "show [U.S.] leadership in significantly reducing our emissions of these gases."

None of the Republican candidates has expressed support for the Kyoto Protocol with most coming out in opposition. Bush calls it "ineffective, inadequate, and ... a bad deal for America and Americans" while McCain expresses "serious concerns about the Kyoto treaty because it fails to include the cooperation of countries such as China and India." Forbes warns that the treaty could "cost millions of jobs and economically devastate farmers, factory workers, miners, and small businesses and Bauer believes "it would be foolish to impose on the industrialized nations economy-chilling and job-killing restrictions, while exempting Red China." Similarly, Hatch warns that the treaty "could cost American workers the loss of more than a million industrial jobs, and result in higher prices for consumers." Hatch as well as McCain joined most of their Senate colleagues in supporting a 1997 Senate resolution opposing the Kyoto Protocol if it lacked participation by developing nations. Alan Keyes has earlier noted that he did not support cutting U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels and opposes "establish[ing] centralized energy planning on a global scale."

Among third party candidates, Gaskin supports ratification while both Hagelin and Kovel see the Kyoto Protocol as just "a first step." However, Buchanan says it "would devastate American industry and obligate our country to onerous environmental regulations that do not apply to other nations."

Next Steps for Addressing Climate Change

As for intermediate steps, both Bradley and Gore have endorsed providing incentives to corporations for taking voluntary action to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions with Bradley adding "it's time to start actually taking tons [of greenhouse gases] out of the atmosphere" while Gore says "greater use of energy efficient technologies and sources of renewable energy are essential to meeting the challenge of climate change." McCain proposes that "we should encourage energy efficiency and focus research and development on technologies that will help meet the environmental needs of the next century" while Bush says that "America must work with businesses ... to develop new technologies to reduce harmful emissions." Keyes does "not view the hypothetical problem of climate change to be an adequate justification for any regulation initiative." None of the other Republican candidates have yet outlined proposed solutions. Hagelin, though, advocates "researching and implementing large-scale, clean, renewable energy alternatives such as wind, solar, biomass, and hydrogen fuel cells" and Kovel "would press for a full-scale, 'moral-equivalent-of-war' approach, focussing on massive transfers from greenhouse polluters to the investment in sustainable energy production and conservation."

The Sustainable Energy Coalition is a coalition of 34 national business, consumer, environmental, and energy policy organizations founded in 1992 to promote increased use of renewable energy and energy efficient technologie and reduced reliance on nuclear power and fossil fuels.

Presidential Candidates Questionnaire: Responses and Position Statements

I. Energy Efficiency/Renewable Energy - Tax and Budget Policy

1.) Do you support increasing, maintaining, or reducing the funding levels for the U.S. Department of Energy's energy efficiency and renewable energy programs (likely to be funded at approximately $1.0 billion in FY'00)?

BAUER: no stated position

BRADLEY: "Bill Bradley supports the widest possible mix of energy sources, including gains in energy efficiency in order to reduce our dependence on insecure sources of fuel, and to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and conventional pollutants." (source: campaign staff response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates' survey - October 4, 1999)

BUCHANAN: Said he supported cuts of 25% in DOE's FY'97 energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. (source: 1996 Energy America survey)

BUSH: Bush said the federal government should continue to fund more research on biomass use. (source: summary of interview with George Bush by "Iowa Farmer Today," October 14, 1999)

Bush said the government should switch to a two-year budget and end what he called "annual gridlock" on Capitol Hill because "it tends to say to America that [Congress and the White House aren't] functioning as well as they could." (source: Chuck Raasch, Gannett News Service, November 10, 1999)

"If I become the president, I'm going to spend money on research and development to find additional uses for agricultural products. It's fantastic renewable resource. ... We ought to spend money on finding our how -- on better and more uses for agricultural products. Who knows, maybe someday we'll be driving automobiles with 100 percent corn products." (source: comments made during the December 13 debate in Iowa among the Republican presidential candidates)

FORBES: "Additional cuts may be needed [in addition to the 25% made in DOE's FY'97 energy efficiency and renewable energy programs] so I have not yet established a funding level." (source: 1996 Energy America survey)

"[We should be] reducing big government bureaucracies and eliminating the unnecessary and bloated Department of Energy and the Department of Commerce (restructuring and transferring essential functions to other departments where appropriate)." (source: Forbes' "New Economy Plan" released October 22, 1999)

Forbes says he wants spending capped. (source: Associated Press - Walter R. Mears, November 18, 1999)

GASKIN: "Increase." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, December 20, 1999)

GORE: "Gore has helped win significant increases for research in energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies. These investments will create jobs, enhance trade, save consumers and businesses money, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions." (source: Gore 2000 campaign web page - printed 11/11/99)

"As President, I will continue my commitment to address the international challenge of global warming with new technologies such as biomass technologies, that create more jobs and make our economy even stronger. On Thursday, August 12th of this year, I announced an initiative that would help increase farmers' incomes by an estimated $15 to $20 billion." (source: Gore2000 web page, November 11, 1999)

"Yes. I have been a long-time supporter of increasing funding for the energy efficiency and renewable energy programs of the Department of Energy (DOE). These programs are critical to the goals of reducing pollution while creating jobs and increasing energy independence. I am especially proud of the efforts of the Clinton-Gore Administration to continue to press for increases in these programs, most recently through the Climate Change Technology Initiative (CCTI) ? a multi-year effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through investments in renewable energy and efficiency technologies. In fact, if the Administration's proposed level of funding for FY 2000 for DOE's energy efficiency and renewable energy R&D and state grants had been fully funded by Congress, it would have represented a historic level of funding for these programs." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, January 11, 2000)

HAGELIN: "The Natural Law Party believes that basic research and development funding on energy alternatives such as fuel cells and solar and wind energy is key to a clean energy future for the nation. The cost of this research is small compared to the environmental and human costs of continuing our current energy system." (source: October 20 response to Sustainable Energy Coalition's presidential candidates' survey)

HATCH: no stated position

KEYES: Said he supported cuts of 25% in DOE's FY'97 energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. (source: 1996 Energy America survey)

"Reduce" (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, January 10, 2000)

KOVEL: "Increase." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, December 17, 1999)

MCCAIN: "We should encourage energy efficiency, and focus research and development on technologies that will help meet the environmental needs of the next century." (source: as cited on his campaign web page)

"In general, I would tell you that I strongly support renewable energy. I believe America should lead in the development and promotion of technology that will provide the world with efficient, clean and renewable energy resources -- technology that we will need to meet both our energy and environmental goals. As part of my efforts to foster the development of this technology, I have supported federal funding for the research and development of solar and renewable energy. I was proud to offer an amendment on the Clean Air Act to stimulate the market for solar and renewable energy alternatives. I also supported legislation that would promote the purchase and use of alternatively fueled vehicles." (source: October 18 response to Sustainable Energy Coalition's presidential candidates' survey)

"McCain will ensure that a greater amount of the $80 billion annually appropriated by Congress for government-funded research and development is dedicated to environmental R&D." (source: McCain campaign press release, December 20, 1999)

TRUMP: no stated position

2.) Do you support federal tax incentives: (a) to encourage consumers to purchase products such as cars, homes, appliances, and heating & cooling systems that are very energy efficient but which might otherwise be more expensive; (b) to increase the use of renewable energy such as wind, biomass, geothermal, and solar for the production of electricity; and/or (c) to promote the use of renewable energy and energy-efficient technologies by businesses?

BAUER: "[The current] tax code fails to recognize the value of investing in people; instead it favors investment in physical capital such as tools, factories, and buildings. ... The United States should scrap the present tax code and replace it with a simple, fair 16% flat tax that eliminates special interest deductions." (source: Bauer2K we site, as printed December 19, 1999)

BRADLEY: "We should give corporations incentives for taking voluntary actions, in advance of [Kyoto] treaty ratification, to help reverse our increasing levels of greenhouse gas emissions. " (source: "Washington Post," October 25, 1999; p. A-16)

BUCHANAN: no stated position

BUSH: no stated position

FORBES: no stated position

GASKIN: "Yes." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, December 20, 1999)

GORE: "I have already proposed a package of such incentives to try to speed up the introduction of new technologies for renewable sources of energy that will cut down on pollution, cut down on emissions, help us address the problem of global warming and clean air." (source: CNN transcript of October 27 debate between Al Gore and Bill Bradley in New Hampshire)

"I strongly support [federal incentives dealing with organizations, companies, businesses that are building new facilities, or upgrading, or retrofitting their processes to make them more energy efficient to reduce the long-term demand and need for our non-renewable energy resources]. ... Look at the companies who have recently changes their position and agreed to be a part of the solution instead of a part of the problem. And we can give those companies incentives in the form of tax credits, federal purchasing procurement policies." (source: CNN transcript of October 27 debate between Al Gore and Bill Bradley in New Hampshire)

"In just the past few years, new technology has given us new ways to clean up the environment while actually creating jobs. It's estimated that there is now a $400 billion worldwide market for products that clean the environment - such as renewable energy products, and alternative fuel vehicles. I've supported tax cuts to invest in those technologies, because they can help us combat challenges such as global warming while also creating lots of good new American jobs." (source: Gore2000 web site, November 11, 1999)

"Yes. Tax incentives for alternative sources of energy are needed to help level the playing field with conventional fuels. With my support, the Administration has proposed a very ambitious package of tax incentives for energy efficient products as part of the CCTI totaling $3.6 billion over five years. It includes tax credits for the following: an extension of the current 10% tax credit for qualified electric and fuel cell vehicles; hybrid vehicles on a sliding scale; new energy-efficient homes on a sliding scale starting at 30% more than the standard under the International Energy Conservation Code; and residential and commercial heat pumps, natural gas water heaters, advanced central air conditioners, and fuel cells." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, January 11, 2000)

"The Administration's CCTI also includes important tax credits to promote the use of renewable energy for electricity production. These tax credits include: a five-year extension of the 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour credit for electricity from wind; an extension for five years of the current biomass credit with an expansion of the definition of eligible biomass and the inclusion of a 1.0 cent per kilowatt hour credit for cofiring biomass and coal; and a 15% tax credit for rooftop solar systems with a maximum $2,000 credit for photovoltaic systems." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, January 11, 2000)

"Businesses would be eligible for many of the tax credits under the CCTI for equipment such as heat pumps, natural gas water heaters, advanced central air conditioners, fuel cells, and rooftop solar systems. They could also take advantage of a tax credit for combined heat and power systems with a credit of 8% for large systems with total energy efficiency exceeding 70% and small systems that exceed 60%." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, January 11, 2000)

HAGELIN: "I support the [wind and biomass] production tax credit, but again prefer a 'true cost accounting' system that would tax polluting energy sources to cover their actual costs to health, the environment, etc." (source: October 20 response to Sustainable Energy Coalition's presidential candidates' survey)

"The real costs to health and the environment of using polluting technologies should be assessed and accounted for. A system that taxes polluting fuels and technologies would be more economically transparent than providing tax relief to nonpolluting technologies. Business and industry are the largest energy users and can have a large effect on pioneering clean energy. But again, I would prefer to tax polluting technologies rather than to offer incentives to clean energy technologies." (source: October 20 response to Sustainable Energy Coalition's presidential candidates' survey)

HATCH: The "Alternative Fuels Promotion Act" (S.1003) creates a 50-cent per-gallon tax credit for the purchase of alternative fuels, such as hydrogen, natural gas, propane, methanol, and electricity. It also provides a tax credit of 10% of the purchase price for alternative fuel vehicles, up to $4,000, and an additional $5,000 credit toward any electric vehicle with a range of over 100 miles. (source: May 12, 1999 press release, office of Senator Orrin Hatch)

KEYES: "The best way to curtail government spending is to cut taxes, because they can't spend what they don't get. ... But we must also take away the government's credit card. With limits on both tax revenue and borrowing, the Federal government would finally be forced to get serious about spending cuts." (source: Keyes2000 web page, as printed December 19, 1999)

"No." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, January 10, 2000)

KOVEL: "Yes" (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, December 17, 1999)

MCCAIN: "I'm ashamed Congress finds billions of dollars for pork barrel spending on subsidies for reindeer ranches and power plants fueled by chicken waste" but does not fulfill promises to provide veterans with quality health care, he said. (source: "Washington Post" - August 18, 1999)

McCain opposes tax breaks to help poultry farmers generate electricity from manure. (source: Associated Press - Calvin Woodward, November 20, 1999)

"[McCain] will permanently extend existing R&D tax credits in order to spur corporations to invest in important environment research projects. ... He will continue to highlight the importance of advanced technology in meeting national environmental goals by better focusing federal research and development funding on such technology, and by making permanent the research and development tax credit." (source: McCain campaign press release, December 20, 1999)

TRUMP: no stated position

3.) Do you support: (a) continuation of the federal tax incentives for ethanol; and/or (b) a renewable energy content standard for transportation fuels?

BAUER: "I support aggressive research that would further expand the many innovative uses for agricultural commodities. We need to continue the ethanol subsidy, which has brought additional marketing options to American corn growers." (source: Bauer for President 2000 web page - printed 9/20/99)

BRADLEY: "When I was in the Senate, I represented my state, [and was against ethanol in gasoline because it] was not good for New Jersey. NJ taxpayers would pay higher prices for their gasoline, and would've have difficulty meeting our clean air standards. But now I'm running for president, I have to see the whole country. The ethanol stream of revenue is one of the things that keeps Iowa farmers afloat. The farm crisis isn't in New Jersey, it's in the Midwest." (source: NBC's "Meet the Press" - cited by )

"For farmers in the Midwest, ethanol makes sense." For years Bradley was the leading enemy of ethanol in the Senate. But after communing with Iowa farmers, he declared a newfound love of the stuff. Ethanol was bad for New Jersey but now he has a broader view. (source: as quoted in article by Howard Fineman, "Newsweek")

Bradley said he had "very specific, New Jersey-based reasons" for voting "no" on successful efforts to give ethanol a federal tax break. "In New Jersey, if ethanol was required, it would mean higher prices for New Jersey drivers. It would also mean that we couldn't use what would be the cheapest additive in reformulated gasoline, which would be methanol. [Now] I'm not simply representing one state but the country as a whole in all the complexities of the country; and I think that ethanol is an important part of the reformulated gasoline program in the country and it will remain so." (source: Reuters, July 6, 1999)

Bradley has vowed "no raids on ethanol" in his administration. (source: August 9, 1999)

"[It is] outrageous to consider a [tax] exemption for ethanol when its subsidy is already greater than the total selling price of other fuels." (source: columnist George F. Will quoting Bradley in the "Washington Post," September 9, 1999)

Bradley says as a presidential candidate, he takes a wider view of issues and now supports ethanol. (source: "Des Moines Register", November 2, 1999)

"I've listened to a lot of Iowa farmers, and I've come to understand why they need this subsidy." (source: "Los Angeles Times" - Janet Wilson & Matea Gold, January 5, 2000)

BUCHANAN: "This is an example of American efficiency." Buchanan said he hoped his visit to the new Sunrise Energy Cooperative ethanol plant, one of four plants in Iowa, would highlight the importance of the corn-fuel additive. (source: "Cedar Rapids Gazette," August 11, 1999)

"[I] support ethanol production as integral to a policy of national energy independence." (source: Pat Buchanan presidential campaign web page; printed 9-20-99)

BUSH: "[Ethanol is] good for the air quality of America." (source: "Washington Post" editorial, July 16, 1999

"I like the environmental benefits [of ethanol]." (source: "Viewpoint" by Toby Eckert, Copley News; August 17, 1999)

"Not only is it good for the farmer, it is good for the quality of air all across America." (source: Associated Press (Mike Glover), September 1, 1999)

"Supports tax incentives for use of ethanol." (source: Bush presidential campaign web page as printed on 9/20/99)

Bush said the U.S. government could do more to promote research on and adoption of new products, including soy diesel and ethanol. The federal government should continue to support ethanol. (source: summary of interview with George Bush by "Iowa Farmer Today," October 14, 1999)

"I support ethanol and I support ethanol strongly. And I would support ethanol whether I was here in Iowa or not. I support ethanol because it's good for our air. It's good for the air. It's good for the quality of the air. It also reduces our dependency upon foreign oil." (source: comments made during the December 13 debate in Iowa among the Republican presidential candidates)

FORBES: Steve Forbes has shown the character to denounce this species of corporate welfare. (source: editorial comment by the "Washington Post," July 16, 1999)

"Emergency economic government assistance for America's farmers is needed due to the severity of the federal government's mistakes, but government aid is not the long-term solution." (source: Forbes statement delivered in Cedar Rapids, IA, August 9, 1999)

Forbes campaign spokesperson Joel Rosenberg notes that Forbes is "against special interest tax credits, loopholes in general. ... I don't think [ethanol's impact on the caucuses] is that big; the farm crisis is the big issue." (source: "Viewpoint" by Toby Eckert, Copley News; August 17, 1999)

Forbes supports ethanol tax breaks for about seven more years while preparing industry to live without them. (source: Associated Press - Calvin Woodward, November 20, 1999)

[Asked whether ethanol has had a fair test in the marketplace and does there come a time when you say, we've invested a lot of money in that, it hasn't made it?] "I think the answer is: of course. And that's why I've supported having a few years of a fair test. And in the year 2007, when this current program expires, if it can't stand on its own two feet, then it ought to go. ... So, yes, let ethanol have its run to 2007. If it doesn't work, cut it out. But I think there are a lot of uses for agricultural products and we should do the research to find what they are." (source: comments made during the December 13 debate in Iowa among the Republican presidential candidates)

GASKIN: "Yes." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, December 20, 1999)

GORE: "[The federal ethanol program] has been a real success; it means thousands of jobs and billions in economics activity in this country." (source: quoted in "Ethanol Report," June 1999)

"Our administration's goal is to triple the use of biomass technologies, ethanol, gasoline additives, plant-based textiles and other environmentally friendly products by 2010. This is just one of the exciting ways our efforts to protect the environment will begin to help America's ailing farming economy." (source: , August 20, 1999)

"I think it's well known that I've always supported ethanol. This is not something that I'm doing on the eve of the Iowa caucuses. I have a consistent record of shoring up the farm safety net." (source: Reuters, October 9, 1999)

"I have not ducked when votes for ... agricultural interests were on the floor," said Gore, who as vice president cast a tie-breaking vote in 1994 affecting federal support for corn-based ethanol fuel. (source: "Des Moines Register," November 2, 1999)

"Yes. As part of a balanced energy strategy, ethanol can make a valuable contribution to America's economy and energy independence and could eventually help to reduce air pollution. The ethanol tax credit helps to encourage domestic investment in ethanol production facilities, increases farm income, stimulates employment, and improves the trade balance. As a renewable resource, increased use of ethanol could also help displace nonrenewable fuels such as petroleum that emit more pollution and greenhouse gases into the environment. I am fully supportive of any workable policy options that will increase the use of renewable energy. I am open-minded on this option, but believe it needs additional analysis given the range of environmental issues related to transportation that may require changes in the content of transportation fuels. For example, the Administration's Tier II rulemaking under the Clean Air Act will very likely require lower sulfur gasoline and diesel fuels as a necessary predicate to reducing smog-related vehicle emissions. Before making a decision on additional changes to transportation fuels such as a renewable energy content standard, I would want to see an analysis of its impact on smog and greenhouse gas emissions, as well as its effectiveness in expanding the market for renewable energy at a reasonable cost to the consumer." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, January 11, 2000)

HAGELIN: "No. [However,] I would support research on biofuels as a transition technology, but would prefer to support fuels and technologies without carbon emissions and other forms of pollution." (source: October 20, 1999 response to Sustainable Energy Coalition's presidential candidates' survey)

HATCH: "We need to use these agricultural products in every way we can. Some day it might come down to where we're going to need this ethanol development to save our country. So I think it's very wise to continue to support it. I realize that we have to develop as many alternative sources of gasoline as we possibly can. This country runs on energy, and we have to always have to be at the forefront of developing good energy, whether it be natural resources or resources we develop through research and development." (source: DeseretNews, September 19, 1999)

"[Senator] Chuck Grassley convinced me that here [i.e., ethanol] is a renewable resource that helps farmers that literally might help us when we have another energy crisis like we did in the late 70's. I went through that; I saw it. And I can tell you it's crazy for us to not do everything we can to develop renewable resources that help farmers and that help everybody. Now, it's too expensive right now..." (source: comments made during the December 13 debate in Iowa among the Republican presidential candidates)

Hatch said he supports ethanol subsidies and said the use of ethanol helps the environment and farmers by using a renewable resource. (source: Associated Press, December 21, 1999)

KEYES: Opposes unspecified "short-sighted socialist policies" in farm aid. (source: Associated Press - Calvin Woodward, November 20, 1999)

"No." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, January 10, 2000)

KOVEL: "Yes." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, December 17, 1999)

MCCAIN: McCain proposed a school voucher program to offer education opportunities for disadvantaged children. He suggested paying for it by eliminating $5.4 billion worth of subsidies for ethanol, sugar, gas, and oil. "We shouldn't have special interest giveaways at the expense of our neediest children," McCain said, adding that the ethanol program was "simply an outdated subsidy for corn producers." (source: Associated Press (Mike Glover), July 28, 1999)

"These subsidies are an example of the influence of special interest in Washington. ... I had the position I take on [ethanol] 17 years ago. I'm convinced many people in Iowa believe as I do that ethanol is good for neither the environment nor the consumer." (source: Associated Press (Holly Ramer), October 27, 1999)

"Ethanol is not worth it. It does not help the consumer. And those ethanol subsidies should be phased out and everyone here on this stage, if it wasn't for the fact that Iowa is the first caucus states, would share my view that we don't need ethanol subsidies. It doesn't help anybody. ... [Ethanol] was a program at the height of the energy crisis. It was brought in, was supposed to be phased out and, obviously, 2007 is quite a while: 35 years." (source: comments made during the December 13 debate in Iowa among the Republican presidential candidates)

"We should not subsidize ethanol or sugar or any other crop, because then that hurts the American consumer." (source: Republican presidential candidates debate, South Carolina - January 7, 2000)

TRUMP: no stated position

II. Efficiency & Renewables - Electric Utility Restructuring

1.) Do you support a Renewable Portfolio Standard, in federal electric utility restructuring legislation, that would require the federal government and the states to insure that electricity generators provide a portion of their power from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass (e.g., 7.5% - 10% by 2010) in addition to that provided by hydropower?

BAUER: no stated position

BRADLEY: no stated position

BUCHANAN: no stated position

BUSH: no stated position

FORBES: no stated position

GASKIN: "Yes." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, December 20, 1999)

GORE: "Yes." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, January 11, 2000)

HAGELIN: "Yes - This is essential in the next decade to aid the startup of renewables in becoming a major energy source. After 10 to 15 years, when renewables become a significant part of our energy portfolio, these incentives should be removed." (October 20 response to Sustainable Energy Coalition's presidential candidates' survey)

HATCH: no stated position

KEYES: "No." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, January 10, 2000)

KOVEL: "Yes." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, December 17, 1999)

MCCAIN: no stated position

TRUMP: no stated position

2.) Do you support, in federal utility restructuring legislation, a small wire charge on everyone's electric bill (say 2-3%), as previously included in most utility rate bases, to maintain funding of energy efficiency, low-income weatherization and energy assistance, and renewable energy research, development, demonstration, and deployment programs?

BAUER: no stated position

BRADLEY: no stated position

BUCHANAN: no stated position

BUSH: no stated position

FORBES: no stated position

GASKIN: "Yes." ( source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, December 20, 1999)

GORE: "Yes." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, January 11, 2000)

HAGELIN: "Yes - I believe that basic scientific research to investigate and validate emerging technologies is essential." (October 20 response to Sustainable Energy Coalition's presidential candidates' survey)

HATCH: no stated position

KEYES: "No." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, January 10, 2000)

KOVEL: "I do not believe these costs should be passed along to consumers, especially by such means, which would be disproportionately burdensome on poor people. The costs should be borne by large utilities and energy corporations." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, December 17, 1999)

MCCAIN: no stated position

TRUMP: no stated position

III. Transportation and Uto Fuel Efficiency Standards

1.) Do you support raising the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards for new cars, Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs), and other light trucks to a combined fleet average of at least 42 mpg by the year 2010?

BAUER: no stated position

BRADLEY: [The House CAFE rider is] "a particularly offensive rider that ... has had the effect of allowing loopholes in the current law to mushroom. In particular, it has created a perverse reduction in fuel efficiency due to the classification of Sports Utility Vehicles as light trucks. There is no one who doesn't recognize that these popular family cars are not sold as work vehicles but are in fact a heavier version of family cars. There is no reason why they should be treated differently than any other automobile. ... I hope that my former colleagues in the Senate will support the bipartisan effort to reject the House language in conference." (source: September 13, 1999 letter from former Senator Bill Bradley to US PIRG's Executive Director, Gene Karpinsky, commenting on the Gorton-Feinstein-Bryan Clean Car Resolution.)

"Bill Bradley supports extension of passenger car fuel economy standards to light trucks and Sport Utility Vehicles. Mobile sources can and should do more to reduce their contribution to air pollution. Thanks to the requirements of the Clean Air Act and CAFE, today's cars are far cleaner and more fuel efficient than those of the past. CAFE standards have been important in achieving that goal and should continue to improve over time. People are driving more and keeping their cars much longer, thus unintentionally eroding much of the environmental benefit of the reforms we have made in the last 20 years." (source: campaign staff response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates' survey - October 4, 1999)

BUCHANAN: Opposes CAFE standards of 45 mpg for new cars and 35 mpg for new light trucks by 2005 (source: 1996 Energy America survey)

BUSH: Bush spokeswoman Linda Edwards said changing the standard for fuel efficiency is a federal issue, but that the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission has taken steps to strengthen state environmental standards. (source: Associated Press)

"Let me put it to you this way: I intend to work with the automobile manufacturers on a reasonable plan. I haven't taken a position yet and don't intend to for a while." (source: "Detroit News" - Richard A. Ryan, January 9, 2000)

"[Bush] believes that current CAFE standards are reasonable and based on historical experience; he is confident new technologies will yield safer and more fuel efficient cars under the current standards." (source: Dan Barlett, a spokesperson for the Bush campaign, as quoted by the "Detroit News" - Richard A. Ryan, January 9, 2000)

FORBES: Opposes CAFE standards of 45 mpg for new cars and 35 mpg for new light trucks by 2005 (source: 1996 Energy America survey)

"'A New Birth of Freedom' offers a conservative, free market vision of environmental stewardship. An environmental vision that is consistent with our values, that relies less on the old Soviet-style command-and-control policies, and more on the spirit of our New Economy -- individual freedom, personal responsibility, technological innovation, market based incentives, and real public accountability." (source: posted on Forbes 2000 web site on August 20, 1999)

GASKIN: "Yes. I support the CAFE and stronger standards as well. We saw the horsepower and speed race die down a little a few decades ago but not it is standard to show cars in ads doing things that any civilian driver would be arrested as a reckless driver if they did it on the public road. To me, the most interesting thing about the answers of the [other presidential] candidates is how well it works as a determiner of which ones are sold out to auto and oil industry." (source: e-mail letter to the Sustainable Energy Coalition, December 8, 1999)

GORE: Vice President Al Gore has recommended a veto of this bill because of this [House Transportation Appropriation bill] rider language, but according to the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, the Clinton administration ignored his suggestion. (source: "Environmental Network News," October 1, 1999)

"I believe that significant improvement in the on-the-road fuel efficiency of the light duty vehicle fleet is critical to addressing climate change, and I will vigorously pursue that goal as President. The America consumer deserves the most efficient vehicle that technology can provide. Significantly improving fuel economy in all sizes of vehicles is possible, in part due to the research done by the Administration's Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles. With respect to specific Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards for the year 2010, I believe it is premature to set a specific standard until the rulemaking process required by law has taken place. That way we will have full information on what is technologically feasible, necessary from an environment standpoint, and protective of consumers." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, January 11, 2000)

HAGELIN: "Yes" (source: October 20 response to Sustainable Energy Coalition's presidential candidates' survey)

HATCH: Voted against measure directing Senate conferees to oppose a CAFE-freeze rider on the FY'00 Transportation Appropriations bill.

KEYES: "CAFE kills 2,000 - 4,000 people a year by making larger, safer cars less affordable. It's an assault on the family car and should be abolished." (source: 1996 Energy America survey)

"No." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, January 10, 2000)

KOVEL: "I would definitely go further than this, guided by the best scientific judgements on what is feasible. If this goes as high as 70 mpg--or more--so be it." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, December 17, 1999)

MCCAIN: Missed vote on measure directing Senate conferees to oppose a CAFE-freeze rider on the FY'00 Transportation Appropriations bill; opted to not sign an earlier letter to the White House urging it to oppose the CAFE-freeze rider.

McCain has expressed interest in holding hearings sometime in mid-year 2000 in the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, which he chairs, on increasing CAFE standards following preparation of a study by the General Accounting Office. (source: Rob Taylor, staff counsel - Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee; conversation December 7, 1999)

TRUMP: no stated position

2.) What other proposals are you putting forth to address issues associated with transportation?

BAUER: no stated position

BRADLEY: "We need new strategies to get car owners to get old clunkers off the road since they contribute disproportionately to pollution and to encourage the production and use of cleaner cars. Americans want and expect the freedom to be able to meet their transportation needs. We need to support efforts that improve mobility for everyone but do so in less environmentally damaging ways. Bill Bradley supports additional efforts to ensure that all Americans breathe healthful air ... including tighter pollution standards for cars and SUVs." (source: campaign staff response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates' survey - October 4, 1999)

"I'm betting that the American public is prepared for some straight talk about the challenges that we face, whether it's why there's a legitimate public interest in building cleaner cars, or cleaning up the older, dirtier power plants that have gone unregulated." (source: statement to League of Conservation Voters dinner as quoted by "Environment News Service," October 21, 1999)

BUCHANAN: no stated position

BUSH: "I do support cleaner gasoline standards across the country. ... [Regarding the Tier 2 standards for automobile gasoline], I think we ought to look at a national standard for lower sulfide for gasoline, absolutely." (source: Bush statement during December 2 debate among Republican presidential candidates in New Hampshire)

GASKIN: no stated position

GORE: "[S]prawl is harder on families than just the long drive to work and back; it means working families must sink thousands of dollars into extra commuting costs. ... In the 1998 election, more than 200 communities discussed -- and the vast majority adopted -- measures to manage sprawl and enhance local livability. The time has come to learn from this citizen ingenuity and apply it to a bigger canvas. ... [W]e are proposing the single highest investment in public transit in history -- $6.1 billion to help communities develop alternatives to building more clogged highways. We are also proposing a record $1.6 billion for state and local efforts to reduce air pollution and ease traffic congestion." (source: speech to the American Institute of Architects, January 11, 1999)

"[W]e must ... ease traffic congestion, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and work to develop cleaner transportation alternatives. .. We must continue to work closely with industry in a spirit of collaboration, not conflict; forging creative new public-private partnerships in areas such as fuel-efficiency [and] greenhouse as emissions." (source: , printed July 7, 1999)

"By investing in mass transit and light rail, and by helping communities develop alternatives to clogged highways, Al Gore believes we can reduce traffic and air pollution, and build the stronger sense of community that walkable, bikeable neighborhoods foster." (source: Gore 2000 news release, October 21, 1999)

In his book ["Earth in the Balance'] seven years ago, Gore advocated the end of the internal combustion engine within 25 years. (source: Jim Gerstenzang, "Los Angeles Times," October 21, 1999)

"Al Gore has been a national leader in addressing ... how to build more livable communities -- places where young and old can walk, bike, and play together; .... places where we can spend less time in traffic and more time with our families. ... Al Gore is working to help communities meet this challenge -- not through a top-down federal role, but by giving communities more of the tools and resources they need to preserve green spaces, ease traffic congestion, promote regional cooperation, improve schools, and enhance economic competitiveness - so communities can grow according to their own local values." (source: , printed November 10, 1999)

"Al Gore joined with the Big Three automakers to create the Public/Private Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles -- to help industry efforts to triple the fuel-efficiency of today's vehicles without increasing cost or reducing quality and safety .... [and] to develop a new generation of fuel- and energy-efficient vehicles." (source: , printed November 11, 1999)

HAGELIN: "The Natural Law Party believes that basic research and development funding on energy alternatives such as fuel cells is key to a clean energy future for the nation." (source: October 20 response to Sustainable Energy Coalition's presidential candidates' survey)

HATCH: "Automobiles are a major source of urban pollution. Past efforts concerning alternative fuels have failed because they have been too heavy on mandates and too weak on incentives. If consumers are to begin buying alternative fuel vehicles, two elements must be in place: first, the price for vehicles and their fuel must be right; second, the consumer must feel confident that the infrastructure is in place with refueling stations widely available. [I proposed meeting] these goals without mandates." (source: follow link to "statements," May 11, 1999)

The "Alternative Fuels Promotion Act" (S.1003) creates a 50-cent/gallon tax credit for the purchase of alternative fuels, such as hydrogen, natural gas, propane, methanol, and electricity. It also provides a tax credit of 10% of the purchase price for alternative fuel vehicles, up to $4,000, and an additional $5,000 credit toward any electric vehicle with a range of over 100 miles. (source: May 12, 1999 press release, office of Senator Orrin Hatch)

KEYES: no stated position

KOVEL: no stated position

MCCAIN: McCain supports the following principles regarding America's environment and natural resources: Encourage development of alternative fuels to reduce pollution; Strengthen emission controls on all gasoline or diesel-powered engines, including cars and trucks. (source: Project Vote Smart, , July 2, 1998)

TRUMP: no stated position

IV. Nuclear Power

1a.) Do you support the construction of new nuclear power plants?

BAUER: no stated position

BRADLEY: no stated position

BUCHANAN: "Yes" (1996 Energy America survey)

BUSH: no stated position

FORBES: "Yes" (1996 Energy America survey)

GASKIN: "No." ( source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, December 20, 1999)

GORE: "I do not support an increased reliance on nuclear power for electricity generation. However, as long as nuclear power plants meet Federal health and safety regulations, decisions about constructing new plants should be left to public utility commissions and private investors. Given current economies of power generation, however, I would not expect that utilities constructing additional generating capacity would choose nuclear power. Furthermore, I strongly support efforts to limit the need for additional power generation through energy efficiency and to use the appropriate mix of regulation and incentives to ensure that utilities constructing new capacity choose generating sources with the least environmental impact." (source: response to the Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, January 11, 2000)

HAGELIN: "No." (October 20 response to Sustainable Energy Coalition's presidential candidates' survey)

HATCH: no stated position

KEYES: "Yes - provided the nuclear plants are not built with tax dollars" (1996 Energy America survey)

"Yes - However, not as a mandatory requirement but if private companies decide to do so if the economics in their judgement makes sense." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, January 10, 2000)

KOVEL: "I support the dismantling of all nuclear power plants with maximum feasible rapidity. The industry should bear all costs just as they have made the profits." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, December 17, 1999)

MCCAIN: no stated position

TRUMP: no stated position

1b.) Do you support the relicensing of existing nuclear plants in the United States?

BAUER: no stated position

BRADLEY: no stated position

BUCHANAN: no stated position

BUSH: no stated position

FORBES: no stated position

GASKIN: "No." ( source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, December 20, 1999)

GORE: "I support keeping open the option of relicensing nuclear power plants as long as it can be shown that the plant in question can reliably meet strict health and safety standards. I do not believe, however, that relicensing of nuclear power plants is proving to be the most economic and profitable course of action for most electric utilities in the U.S." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidate survey, January 11, 2000)

HAGELIN: "No - As a nuclear physicist, I must unequivocally state that we cannot expand our investment in nuclear power plants unless and until a safe and economically sound method of storing or treating long-lived, toxic nuclear waste is found." (October 20 response to Sustainable Energy Coalition's presidential candidates' survey)

HATCH: no stated position

KEYES: "Yes." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, January 10, 2000)

KOVEL: "No." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, December 17, 1999)

MCCAIN: no stated position

TRUMP: no stated position

2.) Do you support, in federal electric utility restructuring legislation, provisions that would enable electric utilities to recover their "stranded costs" (e.g., the cost of uneconomic nuclear power investments) from their customers?

BAUER: no stated position

BRADLEY: no stated position

BUCHANAN: no stated position

BUSH: no stated position

FORBES: no stated position

GASKIN: No Response ( source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, December 20, 1999)

GORE: "Yes. Some recovery of stranded costs is appropriate and necessary as we move toward a deregulated utility sector in which guaranteed recovery of costs through rate regulation is no longer available. The savings to consumers created by a more competitive utility sector should more than offset any costs attributable to stranded cost recovery. Appropriately defining what shall be considered a stranded cost is a difficult issue and should be left to the states, as the Administration's electricity restructuring bill proposes, since states will be most familiar with the best way to protect their utility customers." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidate survey, January 11, 2000).

HAGELIN: "No - I would suggest that we allow utilities to recover their stranded investment in nuclear plants by interim licensing for operation and spent fuel storage in exchange for an agreement by the utility to increase its renewable energy portfolio. This was done in Minnesota: Northern States Power was required to buy 400 megawatts of wind power in order to get licensing to transport and store its spent nuclear fuel." (October 20 response to Sustainable Energy Coalition's presidential candidates' survey)

HATCH: no stated position

KEYES: "No - However, I also oppose mandatory open access. Rather, I favor eliminating state-chartered territorial monopoly franchises and letting power producers figure out how to deliver electricity to today's captive consumers." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, January 10, 2000)

KOVEL: "No." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, December 17, 1999)

MCCAIN: no stated position

TRUMP: no stated position

3.) Do you support establishment of a high-level nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada?

BAUER: no stated position

BRADLEY: no stated position

BUCHANAN: no stated position

BUSH: no stated position

FORBES: "Undecided pending further study" about whether to establish an interim high-level nuclear waste storage site in Nevada. (1996 Energy America survey)

GASKIN: No Response ( source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, December 20, 1999)

GORE: "We need to address the very serious issue of high-level nuclear waste disposal based on sound science, not politics, and in a way that provides maximum protection to public health and the environment. Until the scientific analysis of the Yucca Mountain site is completed, it is premature to make a determination about its use as a disposal site. For that reason, I have strongly supported the Administration's vigorous and successful fight against legislation that would move waste to the Yucca Mountain site before the scientific evaluation is complete. (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidate survey, January 11, 2000)

HAGELIN: "Unfortunately, we are inheriting a legacy of short-sighted and ill-advised energy policies from Republican and Democratic administrations. I would support funding for the immediate containment of spillage from our antiquated, inevitably dangerous storage facilities, followed by systematic cleanup of these facilities and long-term research on technologies for stabilization and neutralization of long-lasting nuclear wastes." (October 20 response to Sustainable Energy Coalition's presidential candidates' survey)

HATCH: no stated position

KEYES: "Undecided" about whether to establish an interim high-level nuclear waste storage site in Nevada. (1996 Energy America survey)

"Yes." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, January 10, 2000)

KOVEL: "No." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, December 17, 1999)

MCCAIN: no stated position

TRUMP: no stated position

4.) Do you support the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's pending policy to recycle radioactive waste from nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants into consumer products?

BAUER: no stated position

BRADLEY: no stated position

BUCHANAN: no stated position

BUSH: no stated position

FORBES: no stated position

GASKIN: "No." ( source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, December 20, 1999)

GORE: no stated position

HAGELIN: "No." (October 20 response to Sustainable Energy Coalition's presidential candidates' survey)

HATCH: no stated position

KEYES: "Yes. It is my understanding that this 'waste' is not spent nuclear fuel, but rather is non-fissionable metals such as nickel, used in the production of nuclear weapons. When recycled, these metals have no more radioactivity than the background environment, and hence pose no human health risk. Allowing private companies to acquire these materials would save the U.S. Treasury and the American taxpayer half a billion dollars in avoided disposal costs." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, January 10, 2000)

KOVEL: "No." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, December 17, 1999)

MCCAIN: no stated position

TRUMP: no stated position

V. Fossil Fuels

1.) Do you support requiring all fossil-fueled power plants to meet the same clean air emissions standards met by new plants built today?

BAUER: no position stated

BRADLEY: "Bill Bradley would support legislation limiting power plant emissions of carbon dioxide. These old plants must do more to meet modern standards. We can't keep extending their exemptions from compliance standards indefinitely. All sectors, not just power plants, need to get involved in reducing carbon dioxide emissions. There must be vigorous enforcement of the standards to ensure they are actually achieved. Bill Bradley supports additional efforts to ensure that all Americans breathe healthful air, including revised air quality standards for ozone and fine particles, tighter pollution standards for cars and SUVs, controls on mercury emissions from coal-burning power plants, and requirements to reduce regional haze. Bill Bradley feels that recent federal court decisions challenging Clean Air regulations are unfortunate and hopes they are overturned on appeal. Too many Americans still live in areas with unhealthy air almost 30 years after the passage of the Clean Air Act. We can do better." (source: campaign staff response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates' survey, October 4, 1999)

"Bill Bradley supports the new ambient air quality standards adopted by EPA and the efforts to reduce levels of NOx. Bill Bradley also believes that states should be held accountable for meeting air quality standards, including the need to offset pollution increases from major new development, but he would give states flexibility in how these new protective standards are achieved. He believes that protective standards, rigorously enforced with flexibility in implementation, rewards innovation, reduce costs of compliance, and improves cooperation and compliance." (source: campaign staff response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates' survey, October 4, 1999)

BUCHANAN: no position stated

BUSH: "I believe business and a healthy environment can co-exist. I look forward to working with Senator Buster Brown and Representative Ray Allen on legislation to make our Texas air cleaner by significantly reducing emissions from older grandfathered plants." (source: 1999 State of the State address, Austin, TX - as cited by .)

"Governor Bush is pleased that we have cleaner air in Texas and is pleased his appointees on the state's environmental committee have recently adopted a cleaner burning fuel standard, making Texas one of the first states in the country to do so." (source: statement by Bush spokeswoman Linda Edwards as quoted by Associated Press 8-//-99)

[In response to a question whether he supports EPA's proposed Tier 2 standards to desulfurize gasoline even though many refiners, some of whom are based in Texas, oppose the standards:] "I do support cleaner gasoline standards across the country. I -- here's what I believe. I believe we can have economic growth and conservation at the same time, and I know there are some environmental groups out of Washington running ads about me here in New Hampshire. They're polluting my record. I've got a good record as governor. We've reduced toxic emissions overwhelmingly in my state. Industrial emissions are down by 11%. I signed two really good pieces of legislation that are going to remove 250,000 tons of stuff being spewed in the air, which is the equivalent of removing 5.5 million automobiles off our roads. I've got a good record because I know how to set high standards; I know how to bring people together to achieve those standards. [Regarding the Tier 2 standards], if I accept -- I think we ought to look at a national standard for lower sulfide for gasoline, absolutely." (source: statement made during Republican presidential candidates debate in New Hampshire, December 2, 1999)

FORBES: "The free market incentives in the 1990 Clean Air Act are a step in the right direction. Before tightening standards, we must be sure of the soundness of the science involved. Sadly, the EPA too often has resorted to junk science. The American people have a right to see the standards and the data on which proposed rules are being put forth. Then we can make an informed decision." (source: interview by Steve Forbes with IowaPulse, November 5, 1999)

GASKIN: "Yes." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, December 20, 1999)

GORE: "We must continue the push for increased air quality standards. I believe it is important to empower states to formulate their own plans to improve air quality. Our administration has given states the opportunity to put together 10-year plans to achieve reasonable progress toward restoring visibility to our national parks and open spaces and helping preserve local green spaces in our communities. We are also keeping close watch on the quality of air we now breathe. Just last month, I announced the Environmental Protection Agency's revision of a two-decade old air quality index system. The revised format will provide specific, more detailed information will include warnings for those with special health conditions ... as well as those with asthma." (source: Gore2000 web site, August 20, 1999)

"One of the greatest obligations of national government is to ensure clean air, clean drinking water, and safe food. That is why the Clinton-Gore administration has enacted strong clean air standards for soot and smog that will prevent up to 15,000 premature deaths a year and improve the lives of millions with respiratory illnesses." (source: Gore2000 web site, as printed November 11, 1999)

"Cleaning up "grandfathered" power plants ? those that, because of their age are not required to meet the same standards as new plants -- is a necessary component of any plan to ensure clean, healthy air for all American citizens. How best to achieve that goal is a matter that requires careful consideration. For example, it is not clear to me whether simply applying current new plant emissions standards to grandfathered plants is the most effective solution. Before making that decision I would want to consider all policy options, including a more comprehensive approach that addressed all types of air emissions, areas in which utility regulation can be streamlined, and the likely impact of electricity restructuring on the industry and air quality." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidate survey, January 11, 2000)

HAGELIN: "Yes." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition's presidential candidates' survey, October 20, 1999)

HATCH: "All of us believe in clean air, clean water, and a better quality of life. And the Environmental Protection Agency, properly run by a Hatch administration, would do a job like it's never been done before." (source: Republican presidential candidates debate, December 13, 1999)

KEYES: "No." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, January 10, 2000)

KOVEL: "Yes." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, December 17, 1999)

MCCAIN: "What could be more conservative than conserving for ourselves and our posterity clean air, safe water and the gifts of unspoiled creation? These are not benefits doled out by government to favored constituencies. ... It's time to comprehensively review our nation's environmental laws to assure they are relevant to today's needs and capabilities. That's not code for weakening standards, it's a call for strengthening our methods for addressing the threats to human health and the environment, and for seeking ways to make them more sensible and less costly." (source: McCain campaign news release, December 20, 1999)

TRUMP: no position stated

2.) Do you support increasing, reducing, or maintaining the current level of tax incentives available to the domestic coal, oil, and natural gas industries?

BAUER: no position stated

BRADLEY: "Bradley would repeal two provisions enacted in 1990 to benefit the oil industry. One cut back the Alternative Minimum Tax for oil and gas operators' intangible drilling costs, leaving only 40 percent of their income subject to the AMT. The second was a 15 percent tax credit for enhanced oil recovery costs beyond the normal tax breaks for drilling operations. Together these breaks cost taxpayers more than $200 million per year in lost revenue. In the last decade, oil companies contributed nearly $22 million in soft money to both Republican and Democratic committees." (source: Bradley campaign news release - January 4, 2000)

BUCHANAN: no position stated

BUSH: "[G]overnments don't control the price of oil, at least in America. ... Surely, [Steve Forbes is] not arguing for price controls. ... We had an industry that's suffered through price control and demand control in the late 70's and that's the natural gas industry ... when the government tried to figure out how to control demand and price and the natural gas business has just finally recovered. ... I did something in Texas that will have near immediate effect and that's decontrol our electricity system, to invite a different type of demand into the equation into Texas. ... In other words, you're focusing on the supply side; I think we need to wean ourselves off of foreign oil and rely upon other products and in my state of Texas, we're doing that. We've got a huge demand for natural gas, which as you know is immune from OPEC and immune from overseas pricing controls." (source: Republican presidential candidates debate in Arizona, December 6, 1999)

FORBES: "OPEC in recent months has been jacking up prices by withholding production. That means, of course, that consumers and farmers are hurt because prices go up. New England's going to have a very expensive winter with heating oil. ... [R]ight now, OPEC is putting the squeeze on. Oil prices have almost tripled in recent months." (source: Republican presidential candidates debate in Arizona, December 6, 1999)

"[George Bush] has spent much of his professional life in the oil industry, yet he clearly has no energy policy, either short-term or long-term. ... Oil prices have almost tripled in recent months. ... New England's going to have a very expensive winter with heating oil. ...Voters want to deal with the here and now and get things done now, while all of Bush's plans push things off for several years. It's astonishing that in energy policy, Bush has nothing to put on the table except a vague endorsement of electric cars." (source: Reuters, December 8, 1999)

Forbes said he would abolish the capital gains tax to encourage more exploration. (source: Reuters, December 8, 1999)

GASKIN: "Reduce." ( source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, December 20, 1999)

GORE: "I support a balanced energy policy that reduces environmental impacts while creating jobs and energy independence. I believe that maintaining tax incentives for the production of U.S. coal, oil, and natural gas can help ensure that domestic markets for these products will be supplied from domestic sources. However, such incentives should be regularly reviewed to ensure that they are still necessary and are working properly, and as President I will make sure such reviews take place. At the same time, I believe that the U.S. should pursue tax policies, such as those in the Climate Change Technology Initiative, that will reduce the need to consume as much energy as it currently does from these sources by promoting more energy efficient vehicles and other alternative energy products." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidate survey, January 11, 2000)

HAGELIN: "Reduce - There are well-thought-out solutions that can end fossil fuel subsidies without jeopardizing the industries that are energy and fuel dependent. These solutions must be implemented, however, with careful planning." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition's presidential candidates' survey, October 20, 1999)

HATCH: no position stated

KEYES: "Reduce." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, January 10, 2000)

KOVEL: "I'd want to study this more closely, but the principle would be that the only tax incentives would be given as a quid pro quo for conservation, and especially for conversion to renewable sources." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, December 17, 1999)

MCCAIN: "I have worked to end corporate welfare enjoyed by certain fossil fuel industries most recently offering an amendment to end oil and gas subsidies." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition's presidential candidates' survey, October 18, 1999)

TRUMP: no position stated

3.) Do you support permanently protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) from oil exploration and drilling?

BAUER: no position stated

BRADLEY: "Fought against opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil, gas, and mineral development." (source: Bradley2000 campaign web site; as printed December 27, 1999)

"Bill Bradley has proposed the creation of a Coastal and Ocean Conservation Fund that would, among other things, provide greater authority to states for coastal protection. Under current law, the Coastal Zone Management Act asks states to establish policies to protect and restore near coastal areas and area within three miles of the coastline. ... To provide greater deference to the states -- as in the case with Florida's decision to deny a drilling permit to Chevron -- Bill Bradley proposes taking the authority to override the states from the Secretary of Commerce and authorizing the President to override the state action only where the national security is threatened by a state's action." (source: Bradley2000 campaign web site; as printed December 27, 1999)

BUCHANAN: Favors opening ANWR to oil exploration and drilling (source: 1996 Energy America survey)

BUSH: Supports existing moratorium on California and Florida offshore drilling. (source: Associated Press - Calvin Woodward, November 20, 1999)

"I would encourage exploration. I mean it's a matter of supply and demand. I would keep plans in place to say to our drillers we want you to continue exploring. I also have got great hope for the natural gas business; the natural gas business is immune to OPEC. The natural gas business is hemispheric in nature. The natural gas business is finally recovering from the foolish ways of the Jimmy Carter era when they tried to nationalize in essence the natural gas business with price fixing and demand. The demand for gas has finally come back." (source: Republican presidential candidates debate in Arizona, December 6, 1999)

Bush said opening the nation's massive oil stockpile was "an option." (source: Associated Press - Glen Johnson, December 7, 1999)

FORBES: Favors opening ANWR to oil exploration and drilling (source: 1996 Energy America survey)

[Asked about how he would lower oil prices, Forbes said] "I was going to say, 'Open up the [strategic] oil reserve.'" (source: Associated Press - Glen Johnson, December 7, 1999)

Longer term, Forbes said he would open new areas for drilling in Alaska. (source: Reuters, December 8, 1999)

GASKIN: "Yes." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, December 20, 1999)

GORE: "Gore promised the nation that as President he would put a stop to all new oil drilling in federal waters off the shores of California and Florida. [He further promised to] fight to prevent oil drilling in federal waters off all states where the public clearly opposes it -- even if companies already have been granted offshore leases. 'The environment is much more than a policy position to me; it is a profoundly moral obligation. We only have one Earth. And if we do not keep it healthy and safe, every other gift we leave out children will be meaningless. ... I am placing environmental protection at the very heart of my campaign for the presidency.," (source: Gore campaign news release, October 21,1999)

"Yes. As President I would veto any legislation that attempted to open the Arctic Refuge to oil exploration and drilling." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidate survey, January 11, 2000)

HAGELIN: "Yes." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition's presidential candidates' survey, October 20, 1999)

HATCH: no position stated

KEYES: Favors opening ANWR to oil exploration and drilling (source: 1996 Energy America survey)

"No." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, January 10, 2000)

KOVEL: "Yes. There is a two-fold principle embedded here: to care for nature; and to put pressure on the oil companies to convert to sustainable energy." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, December 17, 1999)

MCCAIN: "McCain ... criticized the Clinton Administration for its decision to extend 36 offshore oil leases along the central California coast over the objections of that state's Governor and Attorney General. 'I will never lose sight of the fundamental principle that federal land management decisions affecting local communities must be made in cooperation with the Americans who call those communities home.' McCain said. 'The idea that Washington knows best, and that local residents cannot be trusted to do what's right in their own back yard is the epitome of federal arrogance. ... The leases for off-shore drilling should never have been granted without allowing Californians a legitimate voice in the decision-making process.'" (sources: McCain campaign news release, December 20, 1999; Associated Press, December 20, 1999)

TRUMP: no stated position

VI. Climate Change

1.) Do you believe that human activity (i.e., the combustion of fossil fuels and the production of "greenhouse gases") is causing global warming?

BAUER: "The scientific evidence supporting the theory of global warming is ambiguous and inconclusive. Even if the worst-case scenario were accurate, the effects of a warmer climate may not be entirely negative." (source: "Washington Post," October 25, 1999; p. A-16)

BRADLEY: Bill Bradley "acknowledged that it was a 'serious problem.'" (source: quoted by "White House Bulletin" August 2, 1999)

"Bill Bradley believes that we need to confront the threat of ever-increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere and we must do so without further delay." (source: campaign staff response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates' survey - October 4, 1999)

"We need to confront the threat of ever-increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, and we must do so without further delay." (source: "Washington Post," October 25, 1999; p. A-16)

"There are some people that think that global warming is a myth, but all they have to do is come to New Hampshire right now. ... We've just been through a decade that's been the warmest decade in history. We see the polar ice cap melting." (source: MSNBC's "Hardball" with Chris Matthews, January 3, 2000)

BUCHANAN: "Despite Al Gore's apocalyptic forecasts, Earth's temperature has risen only half a degree Celsius since 1870, and of the 200 billion tons of carbon dioxide released annually, 95 percent are the work of nature." (source: "Washington Post," October 25, 1999; p. A-16)

Buchanan's campaign staff says he has become aware of increasing scientific evidence that global warming is not a fantasy created by environmentalists, but has the potential to be a real problem and that answers will have to be found for it. (source: , October 25, 1999)

BUSH: "I believe there is global warming." (source: quoted in column by Mark Hertsgaard, "Los Angeles Times," June 20, 1999)

"[Governor Bush] recognizes that global warming must be taken seriously but will require any decisions to be based on sound science and a thorough cost-benefit analysis." (source: Bush presidential campaign web page as printed out on 9/20/99)

"[Governor Bush] agreed that the earth is getting warmer, but professed to be agnostic about the cause, saying only that the question should be taken 'seriously.'" (source: quoted by "White House Bulletin" August 2, 1999)

"Efforts to improve the environment must be based on sound science, not social fads. Scientific data show average temperatures have increased slightly during this century, but both the causes and the impact of this slight warming are uncertain. Changes in the earth's atmosphere are serious and require much more extensive scientific analysis." (source: "Washington Post," October 25, 1999; p. A-16)

FORBES: "I question the need for restricting the United States' ability to create jobs for our people based on global warming theory which is unproven." (source: 1996 Energy America survey)

"I don't believe it [i.e., that human activity is contributing to global warming]." (source: quoted by the "White House Bulletin" August 2, 1999)

"The catastrophic claims about global warming are deeply flawed. There is no real evidence that the world is heading into an age of super-heated temperatures. The question is not whether we should be concerned about the environment but how we can build upon our successes and make even greater progress." (source: Steve Forbes 2000 Online HQ, "New Birth of Freedom" - cited by )

"The truth is that the catastrophic claims about global warming are deeply flawed. The earth's temperatures were fluctuating long before the Industrial Revolution. there is no real evidence that the world is heading into an age of super-heated temperatures." (source: "Washington Post," October 25, 1999; p. A-16)

GASKIN: "Yes." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, December 20, 1999)

GORE: "There is overwhelming scientific consensus that human activity is contributing to global warming." (source: quote repeated from "Time" magazine and cited in the "White House Bulletin" August 2, 1999)

"In the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, Al Gore became a recognized expert and leader on global environmental challenges. In particular, he focused on the need to combat global warming, which can lead to serious public health consequences, the loss of desperately-needed crops, and extreme weather -- similar to the kind that has been causing such large losses in the past few years. And 1998 was the hottest year in recorded history." (source: Gore 2000 campaign web page - printed 8/21/99)

"There is overwhelming scientific consensus: the threat of global warming is real." (source: "Washington Post," October 25, 1999; p. A-16)

"Global warming is a real problem." (source: CNN transcript of October 27 debate between Al Gore and Bill Bradley in New Hampshire)

"I think that Mother Nature is kind of knocking on the door and sending pretty clear signals that global warming is not only real, it is a serious threat." (source: October 31 interview on ABC's "This Week with Kokie Roberts and Sam Donaldson")

"Yes. I have carefully studied and addressed this issue for much of my public life, and I have concluded that the broad and growing scientific consensus indicates that global temperatures are rising and that human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels are at least partly to blame. Studies have shown that the 20th Century has been the warmest century in the past 1,000 years, the 1990s have been the warmest decade in the period, and 1998 was the single warmest year on record. The world's leading climate scientists predict an eventual increase in global temperatures of 2 to 6.5 degrees F. The range of likely effects that this kind of warming would cause include more extreme weather events, expanded geographic ranges for diseases like malaria and dengue fever, sea level rises, and damage to ecosystems that cannot adapt quickly enough." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidate survey, January 11, 2000)

HAGELIN: "This is the consensus of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and is also the consensus of the vast majority of atmospheric, geological, and environmental scientists." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, October 20, 1999)

HATCH: "I appreciate the global challenges we face in protecting our environment." (source: "Washington Post," October 25, 1999; p. A-16)

KEYES: "On the specific issue of global warming, I am impressed by a variety of empirical evidence that suggests we have little or nothing to fear. ... Literally hundreds of laboratory and field experiments demonstrate that virtually all food crops, trees, and plants raised in CO2-enriched environments grow faster, stronger, and more profusely, with greater resistance to both temperature and pollution stress. ... I believe the balance of evidence suggests that man-made CO2 is not destabilizing the climate system but, rather, enhancing global food security and biodiversity." (source: response to information request from the Ecumenical Ministries of Iowa, October 1999)

"All climate change forecasts depend on technology forecasts. To know how human activity will change the climate over the next century, one must also know what energy technologies will be prevalent in 2050 or 2100. Many of the same 'experts' who only 20 years ago predicted the world would soon run out of oil now claim to foresee how energy will be produced and consumed 50 or 100 years hence. This is hubris of high order." (source: "Washington Post," October 25, 1999; p. A-16)

"On the specific issue of global warming, I am impressed by a variety of empirical evidence that suggests we have little or nothing to fear. The earth seems to have warmed about 0.5 degrees Fahrenheit over the past century. However, that is less than half the amount projected by the climate models underpinning the Kyoto Protocol. Moreover, as much as half of that modest warming may be due to natural fluctuations in the output of solar energy. More important, in the troposphere, the critical atmospheric 'weather zone' where the models predict the strongest 'warming signal,' highly accurate satellite and weather balloon measurements show no net warming over the past 20 years." (source: , October 25, 1999)

"No. The best and empirical data suggests that human activity is causing a modest (and beneficial) regional warming of Siberia and Northwest North America." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, January 10, 2000)

KOVEL: "The evidence is overwhelming." (source: response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates survey, December 17, 1999)

MCCAIN: "The question of whether human activity is significantly altering the global climate is a scientific question, not a political question. We must take seriously the fact that a growing number of scientists believe that global climate change is a real phenomenon. We should conduct further scientific studies to understand fully the environmental and economic dimensions and consequences of the problem. And, we must make sure that any necessary remedies are based on sound science, produce tangible, cost-effective benefits, and are part of an international effort. (source: McCain campaign web page)

"Whether human activity is altering the global climate is a scientific, not a political question." (source: "Washington Post," October 25, 1999; p. A-16)

TRUMP: no position stated

2.) Do you support ratification of the Kyoto Protocol to curb greenhouse gas emissions?

BAUER: "In the absence of conclusive scientific data, it would be foolish to impose on the industrialized nations economy-chilling and job-killing restrictions, while exempting Red China. Congress should demand that the Kyoto agreement be submitted to the Senate for ratification, as the Constitution requires, before any of its provisions are implemented, and resist efforts by the Clinton administrations to enact the treaty unilaterally by executive orders or regulatory edicts." (source: "Washington Post," October 25, 1999; p. A-16)

BRADLEY: "First thing we have to do is enact the Kyoto Protocol." (source: response to a caller's question on an Iowa radio call-in show, August 12, 1999, as reported by U.S. PIRG)

"[Bill Bradley] supports the Kyoto Protocol as an important first step. The U.S. is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases and we must show leadership in significantly reducing our emissions of these gases." (source: campaign staff response to Sustainable Energy Coalition presidential candidates' survey - October 4, 1999)

"A leader today should think about the planet as a whole, and how we can set international standards and how we can help other countries who don't have the resources to clean up their environments. ... It's time to be prudent and stop talking about taking tons [of pollutants] out of the atmosphere and start actually taking tons out of the atmosphere." (source: speech to a League of Conservation Voters dinner as reported by Associated Press - October 19 and Reuters - October 20, 1999)

"I support the Kyoto Protocol as an important first step. The United States is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases and we must show leadership in significantly reducing our emission of these gases." (source: "Washington Post," October 25, 1999; p. A-16)

"I support efforts to implement and strengthen a U.S. emissions reduction program as called for in the Kyoto Global Warming Protocol." (source: statement released by the Bradley Iowa Campaign Headquarters, October 27, 1999)

Calling the Kyoto Protocol "flawed" because it does not hold developing countries accountable enough for their pollution, Bradley said: "If the developing world isn't doing something, we clean up here and China has a billion automobiles that pollute, it's going to be very difficult. So I think transferring technology to the developing world is also important, so that they can skip over the dirty phase of development." (source: MSNBC's "Hardball" with Chris Matthews, January 3, 2000)

BUCHANAN: "As President, I will oppose international environmental accords like the Kyoto Treaty that would devastate American industry and obligate our country to onerous environmental regulations that do not apply to other nations." (source: Go Pat Go 2000 web page - printed 8/17/99)

"The Clinton-Gore cave-in at Kyoto amounts to virtual economic treason against the United States. By a vote of 95-0, the Senate rejected the treaty's exemption of mega-polluters like China, India and Mexico from the draconian cuts in energy consumption imposed on the United States. Still, Clinton signed this protocol that, if implemented, will send America's standard of living spiraling downward." (source: "Washington Post," October 25, 1999; p. A-16)

BUSH: "It's going to cost the U.S. jobs. ... I also don't appreciate the fact the United States bears the brunt of the goal of Kyoto while underdeveloped, developing nations are really excluded from cleaning up the environment. ... It's a bad deal for America and Americans." (source: "Houston Chronicle," September 1, 1999)

"[O]pposes Kyoto protocol." (source: Bush presidential campaign web page as cited 9/20/99)

"I oppose the Kyoto Protocol; it is ineffective, inadequate, and unfair to America because it exempts 80 percent of the world, including major population centers such as China and India, from compliance." (source: "Washington Post," October 25, 1999; p. A-16)