Tim Kaine on Environment Democratic Senate Challenger; previously Governor

Extreme concern over cuts to EPA

Tim Kaine (D): No. Signed letter voicing "extreme concern" over the cuts.

Corey Stewart (R): Likely yes. Excess environmental regulation "costs jobs, increases energy costs.has little or no positive impact."

Don't require GMO labels for genetically-engineered food

Tim Kaine's answer: No

Mike Pence has not answered this question yet.

Evan McMullin's answer: No

We must protect resources like oyster reefs and clean water

A clean environment and a strong economy need not contradict

Always work to protect our air, water and land

Save animal lives with anti-freeze poisoning prevention bill

Comprehensive study of mercury's effect on environment

"Our understanding of mercury's effect on the environment is incomplete. We need more information on the steps we should take to reduce mercury contamination," Kaine said. "We expect this study to provide the best possible information on how mercury affects Virginians and our natural resources."

Mercury has been shown to pose health risks, especially to develop

Historic investments in water quality & open space

Together, we've embraced innovative management practices like the Council on Virginia's Future and the new Virginia Performs website. As a result, we've cemented our reputation as the best managed state in America and continued to win accolades for our financial management and service to citizens.

Together, we changed the way we think about transportation and land use in Virginia. Last year's traffic impact statement legislation was a turning point in connecting state transportation planning with local land use planning. As a result, we are beginning to make better decisions in managing Virginia's growth.

Invest in ongoing work to clean up rivers & Chesapeake Bay

Keep restrictive rules for predator control in Alaska.

Library of Congress Summary: This joint resolution nullifies the rule finalized by the Department of the Interior on Aug. 5, 2016, relating to non-subsistence takings of wildlife and public participation and closure procedures on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska.

Case for voting YES by House Republican Policy Committee: The Fish and Wildlife Service rule--which lays claim to more than 20% of Alaska--violates ANILCA (Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act) and the Alaska Statehood Compact. Not only does [the existing 2016 rule] undermine Alaska`s ability to manage fish and wildlife upon refuge lands, it fundamentally destroys a cooperative relationship between Alaska and the federal government.

Case for voting NO by the Sierra Club (April 6, 2017):

• President Trump signed H.J. Res. 69, overturning the rule that banned `predator control` on federal wildlife refuges in Alaska unless `based on sound science in response to a conservation concern.`
• Any rule mentioning `sound science` is in trouble under a Trump administration.
• So what kinds of practices will the Trump administration now allow on our federal wildlife refuges? Activities that include shooting or trapping wolves while in their dens with pups, or hunting for grizzly bears from airplanes.
• It`s all about ensuring a maximum yield of prey species like elk, moose, and caribou for the real apex predator: humans. So if having more elk requires killing wolf pups in their dens, then so be it.
• The Obama administration`s rule (which Trump revoked) never tried to stop all hunting. Subsistence hunting was still allowed. What`s changed is that the predators on federal wildlife refuges are now under the control of the state of Alaska. And that makes them prey.