|
|
John Delaney on EnvironmentDemocratic candidate for President; U.S. Rep from MD-6 |
FIVE CANDIDATES HAVE SIMILAR VIEWS: Cory Booker; Peter Buttigieg; John Hickenlooper; Amy Klobuchar; Andrew Yang.
Many environmentalists and scientists believe it will be impossible to decarbonize the power sector and fight climate change without maintaining nuclear power, because it offers more capacity than renewables and is more reliable to dispatch since it does not rely on the wind or sunshine.
John Delaney: "I support vehicle emissions standards and methane limits and other measures as a backstop. Over all, the most important thing we need to do is implement a carbon tax. Based on economic/climate modeling, a carbon tax would be more effective at reducing greenhouse gas emissions than regulations. This would harness the power of the free market but have regulations as a backstop."
Q: Do you support new regulations to cut greenhouse gas emissions beyond what was in place under President Obama?
John Delaney: "I would implement a carbon tax and primarily use market forces, rather than regulations, as the way to change behavior."
Delaney: "Nuclear energy should be part of our portfolio, and I believe we need to support new development of advanced nuclear technology, but not at the expense of developing renewables."
A BILL to require the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a national disclosure standard for bioengineered foods.
Cato Institute recommendation on voting YES: President Obama quietly signed legislation requiring special labeling for commercial foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs)--plants and animals with desirable genetic traits that were directly implanted in a laboratory. Most of the foods that humans & animals have consumed for millennia have been genetically modified, by cross-fertilization. Yet the new law targets only the highly precise gene manipulations done in laboratories. Anti-GMO activists oppose the new law because it preempts more rigorous regulation. And that's exactly the goal of this bill, to the frustration of the anti-GMO crowd.
JustLabelit.org recommendation on voting NO (because not restrictive enough): Senators Roberts (R-KS) and Stabenow (D-MI) introduced a compromise bill that would create a mandatory, national labeling standard for GMO foods. This bill falls short of what consumers expect--a simple at-a-glance disclosure on the package. As written, this compromise might not even apply to ingredients derived from GMO soybeans and GMO sugar beets. We in the consumer rights community have dubbed this the "Deny Americans the Right-to-Know" Act (DARK Act). We need to continue pressing for mandatory GMO labeling on the package.
Heritage Foundation recommendation on voting NO (because too restrictive): The House should allow [states, at their choice,] to impose [a more] restrictive labeling mandate, but prohibit the state from regulating out-of-state food manufacturers engaged in interstate commerce. Instituting a new, sweeping, federal mandate that isn't based on proven science shouldn't even be an option.
Legislative outcome: Passed by the Senate on July 7th, passed by the House on July 14th; signed by the President on July 29th