Candidate Survey on Climate and Energy Issues Collected by Mid-Missouri Peaceworks, September 2016

MID-MISSOURI PEACEWORKS Citizen Action for Peace & the Environment 804-C E. Broadway, Columbia, MO 65201 573/875-0539 www.midmopeaceworks.org [email protected]

Introduction: Mid-Missouri Peaceworks is a grassroots, non-profit organization that works on sustainability, climate, peace and justice concerns. Peaceworks is an educational organization and does not endorse, support or oppose candidates for office. We do, however, educate voters as to the issue stands of candidates. Arguably the most pressing issue facing humanity is Climate Change. Unlike most other important concerns, anthropogenic climate change is an existential threat, with the potential to wipe out our civilization. This noted, it is deeply disturbing that the Climate Crisis is being largely ignored by most candidates running for office. For this reason, Peaceworks launched an educational campaign called “Climate Matters.” One aspect of this effort is compiling and sharing information as to where the candidates stand on this critical set of issues. Toward that end, in early September we mailed surveys to candidates running for both state and federal legislative seats, including all whose districts were entirely or partially in mid-Missouri. We also sent questionnaires to all candidates running for statewide office. We requested these be returned to us by Sept. 23, and we sent reminders out by e-mail. To date 14 candidates, mostly ones running for the state legislature, took the time to respond. On subsequent pages we have presented the responses we received. We also have listed all the candidates we attempted to survey, and, when possible, the website, Facebook page or Twitter feed URLs for the candidates. Some of these candidates have information relevant to climate change and energy issues on their sites. Many, unfortunately, do not mention climate change, or any environmental concerns for that matter. Besides allowing you to see what they’ve posted, if anything, regarding the climate, we also compiled these URLs in hopes that constituents would take the opportunity to communicate with these candidates, be they incumbents or aspiring officials, to let them know your concerns regarding this most critical set of issues. It seems that many candidates are not hearing from those they hope to represent and thus are not feeling significant pressure to address the Climate Crisis. In fact, some even think that going on the record regarding the climate is a liability. They seem more afraid to voters rejecting them for

wanting to protect our children’s future than they are of runaway climate change, which has the potential for massive dislocation, starvation, coastal inundation and the creation of hundreds of millions of climate refugees. One official who we contacted wrote back and, off the record, and stated in part: “I am very cautious about completing questionnaires as I know that opposition researchers love to find old writings to misconstrue and use against candidates in current or future races.” Our Director, Mark Haim, wrote back, thanking the candidate for their candor and stating in part: “To be honest, however, I really do think there is a moral imperative to speak out as specifically as possible on the Climate Crisis, as it is in many ways the defining issue of the day (perhaps the century), just as civil rights was in the late 50s and 60s, or the Vietnam War was in the late 60s and early 70s.” Unfortunately, there has been no further response from this candidate. Perhaps, if more of you reading this would join us in reaching out to the candidates, we’d find them more responsive to our concerns. While we are past our stated deadline, we are still accepting and sharing late arriving questionnaires. Please let candidates who did not respond know that you’d like to know where they stand and that their responses would still be most welcome. Note on party codes: D = Democrat, R = Republican, L = Libertarian, C = Constitution, G = Green, I = independent.

The Questions: Candidate Questionnaire on Climate & Energy Concerns 1) Which energy sources do you favor increased use of over the next decade? 2) Do you accept the reality of human-caused climate change and do you see this as a high priority to be addressed at all levels of governance? 3) Do you support the steps initiated by the Obama administration to address Climate Change, including specifically the EPA Clean Power Plan, the revision of automotive CAFE standards and commitment to the Paris Agreement targets? Please indicate specifically which, if any, of these initiatives you support. 4) Do you recognize that most proven reserves of oil, gas, coal, tar sands, shale oil, etc., including on-land and offshore, will have to be left in the ground if catastrophe is to be averted? Please feel free to share your thinking on our carbon budget and the need, moving forward, to limit emissions in order to stay within this. 5) Do you support putting a price on carbon? If so, what method do you favor? 6) What else do you propose in terms of governmental action and public policy to address Climate Change? Please be as specific as possible. Please feel free to write as much as you need to to clearly and fully explain your positions on these issues. Please be sure to include your name and the office you are seeking along with your answers.

Missouri House Candidates: We sent surveys to candidates from House districts throughout the entire mid-Missouri region. As the majority of our members live in Boone County, we list these responses first, and follow these with those from other parts of our region. Boone County Districts: District 44: Tom Pauley (D) (Responded) http://pauley44.com/ Cheri Toalson Reisch (R) (Responded) https://twitter.com/cherimo44 District 45: Kip Kendrick (D) (No response) http://www.kipkendrick.com/ William Lee (I) (Responded) https://www.facebook.com/williamleemodistrict45/ District 46: Martha Stevens (D) (Responded) http://www.friendsofmarthastevens.org/ Don Waterman (R) (No response) https://votewaterman.com/ District 47: Susan McClintic (D) (No response) http://www.susanforrep.com/ Charles (Chuck) Basye (R) (No response) https://www.facebook.com/ChuckBasye47/ District 50: Caleb Jones (R) (No response) https://www.facebook.com/Caleb-Jones-for-State-Representative-296338371933/

Tom Pauley Candidate for the 44th Legislative District 1) Which energy sources do you favor increased use of over the next decade? I feel we need to increase usage of renewable energy sources and start the move toward reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. Wind, solar and geo-thermal are all proven methods of producing electricity economically with minimal impact on the environment. 2) Do you accept the reality of human-caused climate change and do you see this as a high priority to be addressed at all levels of governance? The scientific evidence proves overwhelmingly that climate change is caused by human use of fossil fuels. Proof exists that the current levels of CO2 are unprecedented and can be directly attributed to the increased use of fossil fuels at the start of the industrial revolution. 3) Do you support the steps initiated by the Obama administration to address Climate Change, including specifically the EPA Clean Power Plan, the revision of automotive CAFE standards and commitment to the Paris Agreement targets? Please indicate specifically which, if any, of these initiatives you support. While it is easy to support the issues addressed in this question I’m not sure of exactly how much effect a state legislator can have on these national and global initiatives. When elected I would welcome the opportunity to meet with the proponents of these initiatives and discuss potential solutions. 4) Do you recognize that most proven reserves of oil, gas, coal, tar sands, shale oil, etc., including on-land and offshore, will have to be left in the ground if catastrophe is to be averted? Please feel free to share your thinking on our carbon budget and the need, moving forward, to limit emissions in order to stay within this. I have always had my concerns over how energy companies are extracting fossil fuels from the ground. With the recent rash of seismic activities such as earthquakes centered on the fracking fields in Oklahoma and nearby states I am even more reluctant about these endeavors. Combine these experiences with the BP Deep Water Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico and we must ask ourselves “what price are we willing to pay for cheap gasoline?” 5) Do you support putting a price on carbon? If so, what method do you favor? Putting a price on carbon emissions is very complex. Considering the many different was carbon is distributed into the atmosphere I feel this question should be addressed in a way where we can decide which source and how much carbon emissions should be priced. If we are only talking about industrial emissions from manufacturing sources that would be one level as compared to a 750 KW coal fired power plant produce electricity. We need to consider the

amount of carbon emitted for transportation usage. A Boeing 747 emits a tremendous amount of carbon compared to a Harley-Davidson Motorcycle. I’m not opposed to placing a tax on carbon emissions; I feel it is not a “one size fits all” situation. 6) What else do you propose in terms of governmental action and public policy to address Climate Change? Please be as specific as possible. I would like to focus on legislation that promoted renewable energy resources. Finding places where the state can provide incentives for innovations that create energy conservation and energy savings. Remove the restraints from small companies who are trying to develop alternative energy solutions and are being constrained by the large corporations who have control of the market. Please feel free to write as much as you need to to clearly and fully explain your positions on these issues. All of the ideas that have been proposed and discussed are great. The solution too many of our states and countries energy and environmental challenges are being anticipated right now. However, until we re-establish ethical, conscientious legislative practices and prohibit unfettered contribution and gift giving by lobbying groups NOTHING WILL CHANGE. We must stop the big money influence over our legislature if we ever hope to re-establish a truly publicly controlled and citizen based legislative process.

Cheri Toalson Reisch Candidate for the 44th Legislative District 1) Which energy sources do you favor increased use of over the next decade? All of them. 2) Do you accept the reality of human-caused climate change and do you see this as a high priority to be addressed at all levels of governance? I am not sure at this time. Various studies have given varied answers. 3) Do you support the steps initiated by the Obama administration to address Climate Change, including specifically the EPA Clean Power Plan, the revision of automotive CAFE standards and commitment to the Paris Agreement targets? Please indicate specifically which, if any, of these initiatives you support. No. Electric costs will increase dramatically especially to those who can least afford them. 4) Do you recognize that most proven reserves of oil, gas, coal, tar sands, shale oil, etc., including on-land and offshore, will have to be left in the ground if catastrophe is to be averted? Please feel free to share your thinking on our carbon budget and the need, moving forward, to limit emissions in order to stay within this. No. There is no scientific evidence that a catastrophe will be caused if they are extracted. God put them there for humans to use. 5) Do you support putting a price on carbon? If so, what method do you favor? No. 6) What else do you propose in terms of governmental action and public policy to address Climate Change? Please be as specific as possible. No response.

William Lee Candidate for the 45th Legislative District 1) Which energy sources do you favor increased use of over the next decade? The energy sources that I support use of over the next decade are wind, solar, and electric. That being said, I think that more development needs to be done in the technology of fuel cells for hydrogen. 2) Do you accept the reality of human-caused climate change and do you see this as a high priority to be addressed at all levels of governance? I do think that conservation and stewardship of the planet needs to be a top priority in legislation. However, I do not think that the cause is known with a 100% certainty. 3) Do you support the steps initiated by the Obama administration to address Climate Change, including specifically the EPA Clean Power Plan, the revision of automotive CAFE standards and commitment to the Paris Agreement targets? Please indicate specifically which, if any, of these initiatives you support. I support reasonable efforts to reduce carbon emissions, implementation of current technology, and research into new clean technology. I support conservation and stewardship of our resources and think that we can find a way to be clean in all our emissions with time, and research. 4) Do you recognize that most proven reserves of oil, gas, coal, tar sands, shale oil, etc., including on-land and offshore, will have to be left in the ground if catastrophe is to be averted? Please feel free to share your thinking on our carbon budget and the need, moving forward, to limit emissions in order to stay within this. I think that it would be catastrophic to our economy and to our lifestyles if we cut everything off, to maintain our economy and the economy worldwide we need fossil fuels ..for now at least. I think that we should limit use of them where we can because a cleaner planet benefits everyone. I think that there needs to be a balanced approach however, involving serious research with clean energy. I do not pretend to know that a catastrophe is near. I think that if we put our minds to work and research the most promising technology, we will be able to avoid one all together. 5) Do you support putting a price on carbon? If so, what method do you favor? I do not think that “putting a price on carbon” would help anything, all that would is drive the cost of living up and end up hurting the most poor among us. I also think that it would drive lots of small business owners out of business. We need to be better stewards, and I cannot see that “putting a price on carbon” would do anything to help that objective.

6) What else do you propose in terms of governmental action and public policy to address Climate Change? Please be as specific as possible. According to the American Chemistry Society 60% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor, there are a number of other factors that increase and decrease the effect, but there is not sufficient proof to say with 100% certainty what is affecting the environment most, or causing the most changes. Because we do not know with 100% certainty, I think that the role of government is to encourage conservation, reduction of the use of fossil fuels, and implementation of wind, solar, and hydroelectric power, as well as research into Hydrogen Fuel Cells to make them efficient enough to use in cars and other vehicles. I think that there are other areas that need to be researched as well, for instance a battery that is not so dirty to dispose of a more environmentally friendly battery technology can be achieved, however we have to strive for it. Encouragement of charging stations for total electric cars would also be something to look at when the battery technology is sufficient to carry an electric vehicle a distance that would call for them. These are just a few ways to improve our stewardship of and care for the planet.

Martha Stevens Candidate for the 46th Legislative District 1) Which energy sources do you favor increased use of over the next decade? We need to invest in renewable energy (wind & solar) and take advantage of the technology that exists that will help reduce our dependency on fossil fuels that are finite resources and are too environmentally damaging to retrieve. 2) Do you accept the reality of human-caused climate change and do you see this as a high priority to be addressed at all levels of governance? Yes. Addressing climate change should be a high priority for all levels of governance. 3) Do you support the steps initiated by the Obama administration to address Climate Change, including specifically the EPA Clean Power Plan, the revision of automotive CAFE standards and commitment to the Paris Agreement targets? Please indicate specifically which, if any, of these initiatives you support. Yes, I support the steps outlined in the Clean Power Plan and the goals set forth by the Paris Agreement targets. These steps represent the beginning of a long road ahead of us to truly engage in efforts to reduce climate change and improve the overall status of pollution in our world. However, it will be up to governments, states, and other countries to implement these outlined steps which may prove challenging. 4) Do you recognize that most proven reserves of oil, gas, coal, tar sands, shale oil, etc., including on-land and offshore, will have to be left in the ground if catastrophe is to be averted? Please feel free to share your thinking on our carbon budget and the need, moving forward, to limit emissions in order to stay within this. To avert catastrophe, we should be taking advantage of renewable energy resources such as solar and wind instead of to relying on in ground reserves of oil, gas and other fossil fuels. This is why we need to take advantage of renewable energy sources. 5) Do you support putting a price on carbon? If so, what method do you favor? This is a complicated issue. There are incentives to enacting a tax on carbon but there are concerns about repercussions of this and how it can be enforced, implemented, and how it impacts low-income people and developing countries.

6) What else do you propose in terms of governmental action and public policy to address Climate Change? Please be as specific as possible. As previously stated we need to move away from our dependence on fossil fuels and start investing in renewable energy sources and work towards improving our state’s energy efficiency rating. I support tax credits to help improve energy efficiency for our state’s infrastructure. I also support the installment of the Clean Line Grain Belt to bring more clean wind energy to Missouri. As a legislator I would also advocate for our state to write its own state plan to comply with the Clean Power Plan that will expand the use of renewable energy.

Mid-Missouri State House Districts Outside of Boone County: We regret that there were not more responses from state house candidates. We encourage you to contact these candidates and let them know that you would like to know where they stand on the climate. District 42: Bart Korman (R) (No response) http://bartkorman.com/ District 43: Ed Lockwood (D) (No response) https://www.facebook.com/molockwood/ Jay D. Houghton (R) (No response) https://www.facebook.com/State-Representative-Jay-D-Houghton-215898821824366/ District 48: Dave Muntzel (R) (No response) https://www.facebook.com/Dave-Muntzel-for-State-Representative-285149314901811/ Debbie Dilks (I) (Responded) https://www.facebook.com/48thforprogress/?fref=ts District 49: Travis Fitzwater (R) (No response) http://www.travisfitzwater.com/ District 51: John Cozort (D) (No response) No website found Dean A. Dohrman (R) (No response) https://www.facebook.com/dohrmanforstaterep/ District 52: Kyle Garner (D) (Responded) http://www.garnerformo.com/ Nathan Beard (R) (No response) No website found District 54: Bob Gregory (D) (No response)

https://www.facebook.com/Bob-Gregory-for-the-54th-District-State-Representative1670645523202850/timeline Dan Houx (R) (No response) http://www.danhoux.com/ Steve Daugherty (L) (No response) https://www.facebook.com/steve4freedom/ District 58: Travis Maupin (D) (No response) https://www.facebook.com/maupinforstaterep/ David Wood (R) (No response) https://www.facebook.com/david.wood.5815 District 59: Mike Bernskoetter (No response) http://www.mikebernskoetter.com/ District 60: Kevin Nelson (D) (No response) http://www.nelsonformissouri.com/ Jason (Jay) Barnes (R) (No response) http://barnesformissouri.com/ District 61: Tom Smith (D) (Responded) https://www.facebook.com/tomsmith61st/ Justin Alferman (R) (No response) https://www.facebook.com/AlfermanForMissouri/ District 62: Tom Hurst (R) (No response) No website found District 124: Rocky Miller (R) (No response) http://www.electrockymiller.com/

Debbie Dilks Candidate for the 48th Legislative District 1) Which energy sources do you favor increased use of over the next decade? Wind and solar energy sources are obvious choices that are available for immediate solutions. I also believe that Hemp is a viable alternative for our future. Not only as a biofuel; it also has many uses that would help our manufacturing economy and save natural resource. Hydro Electric Power would be a great alternative for Missouri also considering our immense waterways; especially for very rural communities. We need to increase research funding for all Green alternatives so that we are relying more on safe renewable resources by the end of the next decade rather that fossil fuels. 2) Do you accept the reality of human-caused climate change and do you see this as a high priority to be addressed at all levels of governance? I absolutely believe that climate change is caused by human activity! And we are the only ones that can turn that around. All levels of government should be taking this seriously and have it at the top of the agenda. We are running out of time to stop and reverse the effects of global warming. Missouri legislature specifically should be taking this more seriously. We have huge water ways and delicate ecosystems that will diminish and die out if we don’t start making moves now. And I believe that we can the good people of this state on board by educating on how the Green industry not only helps the planet but can put people back to work in our state. 3) Do you support the steps initiated by the Obama administration to address Climate Change, including specifically the EPA Clean Power Plan, the revision of automotive CAFE standards and commitment to the Paris Agreement targets? Please indicate specifically which, if any, of these initiatives you support. The Clean Power Plan is a good start but I believe there is room for much improvement. I would have liked to see it end new fossil fuel builds and facilities such as the pipelines and to put an immediate end to fracking. Paris Agreement: I have not gone in-depth regarding the Paris agreement. On the surface it appears to be a step in the right directions but still lacking. What I believe is that the entire world will have to take a part in ending climate change. Countries must come together to find ways to make changes while balancing economics however they need to be aggressive. While some will hold to the agreement there undoubtedly will be some that fail or give in to greed, power and dark money. The U.S. is poised to take a strong lead in fighting climate change and to become the model for the world.

Both the Clean Power Plan and Paris Agreement have plenty of room for improvement but the U.S. can make those improvements at home on our own too. CAFÉ: personally, I don’t see that it really does much to change the auto industry. Period. 4) Do you recognize that most proven reserves of oil, gas, coal, tar sands, shale oil, etc., including on-land and offshore, will have to be left in the ground if catastrophe is to be averted? Please feel free to share your thinking on our carbon budget and the need, moving forward, to limit emissions in order to stay within this. Leave it in the ground. Fracking and DAPL should be stopped immediately. I stand firmly with the people of the Dakotas and Oklahoma. I feel that the data gathered from the carbon budget is conclusive and irrefutable. We should focus on getting below the budget. We need more research funding, faster movement toward replacing fossil fuels with already present green alternative. We need to be creating jobs across the country to in Green manufacturing such as parts for wind turbines, solar units, etc. We also need to set up programs to transition workers from the fuel industry to green jobs similar to the worker displacement programs. 5) Do you support putting a price on carbon? If so, what method do you favor? I believe that a carbon tax would be beneficial in moving people toward green alternatives and stepping away from carbon use. Unlike many of the countries that now have a carbon tax, the U.S. is vastly spread. Rural areas where there is low income and no access to public transportation would be the most hurt by a tax. So I believe that in conjunction, we must develop affordable alternatives not only in fuels but also machinery and transport that utilize them. And again, here is where I believe hemp could help with these issues. A Green fuel alternative that helps revive rural farming communities and allows the workers of these small communities stay mobile and connected. As far as the methods, I would need to research into all the options at hand more and maybe come up with a few new options. However, the main method that I have been looking at and favored so far is to tax by fuel type and CO2 emissions. 6) What else do you propose in terms of governmental action and public policy to address Climate Change? Please be as specific as possible. I would like explore the possibility of setting up some exchange programs. Utilize some of the fossil fuel tax revenue to help lower income people to convert from fossil to green alternatives. This could as big or small as automobiles and heating unit exchanges to light bulb exchanges. The programs could also have a built in recycling benefits to help offset waste and cost. We keep talking of forcing the industry into change, which is the first and biggest step, however we must also find ways to help the people to transition without putting undue strains on those people and families that are already struggling to survive. Call me optimistic but I believe that this to can be done.

Kyle Garner Candidate for the 52nd Legislative District 1) Which energy sources do you favor increased use of over the next decade? I favor an “all of the above” plan for the short-term future. I don’t believe we will have the energy production capacity to get off of fossil fuels in the next decade, but we can start to move that way by employing renewable such as solar and wind power where possible, as well as shifting towards natural gas and nuclear energy for our power needs. 2) Do you accept the reality of human-caused climate change and do you see this as a high priority to be addressed at all levels of governance? Yes. How climate change became a partisan issue is beyond me. The science shows that human activity has impacted our planet’s climate and that we must move quickly to address it. There is no issue as universally impacting as climate change and doing what we can to slow, stop, and reverse it must be a top priority. 3) Do you support the steps initiated by the Obama administration to address Climate Change, including specifically the EPA Clean Power Plan, the revision of automotive CAFE standards and commitment to the Paris Agreement targets? Please indicate specifically which, if any, of these initiatives you support. I am not well versed in the specifics of the various initiatives of the Obama administration. I support the efforts to decrease our consumption of fossil fuels, both addressed in the Clean Power Plan and the more stringent new automotive CAFE standards. The Paris Agreement was a huge accomplishment in bringing on our international partners as climate change is a global issue. 4) Do you recognize that most proven reserves of oil, gas, coal, tar sands, shale oil, etc., including on-land and offshore, will have to be left in the ground if catastrophe is to be averted? Please feel free to share your thinking on our carbon budget and the need, moving forward, to limit emissions in order to stay within this. I don’t know that they will “have to be left in the ground” as there are uses for those products beyond fuel consumption and energy production. The emission goals are necessary to address climate change. 5) Do you support putting a price on carbon? If so, what method do you favor? I don’t have a stance on a carbon tax. Running at the state level and not the federal level, this is unlikely to be an issue I can have an impact on.

6) What else do you propose in terms of governmental action and public policy to address Climate Change? Please be as specific as possible. My office will be at the state level and as such, my focus is on what Missouri can do. I think there is room for the state to emphasize renewable energy production here, as well as updating our electrical grid to be more efficient and encourage local, individual power production through solar and wind. Our highway system is also in need of long past due upgrading. This can allow for more efficient driving, saving fuel as well as individual fuel costs. In Missouri, we have some of the leading research institutes within the University of Missouri system. We can be a leader in developing next-generation energy production technology, as well as finding more efficient ways to harness current technology. Doing this means a reinvestment into our universities and a renewed commitment to higher education. We can also take a closer look at travel amounts and methods of state employees. Travel is a necessary part for many state officials, but there may be room to decrease the carbon footprint of that travel.

Tom Smith Candidate for the 61st Legislative District 1) Which energy sources do you favor increased use of over the next decade? Prefer Solar, but a combination of Wind and Solar and where possible Geothermal. 2) Do you accept the reality of human-caused climate change and do you see this as a high priority to be addressed at all levels of governance? 3) Do you support the steps initiated by the Obama administration to address Climate Change, including specifically the EPA Clean Power Plan, the revision of automotive CAFE standards and commitment to the Paris Agreement targets? Please indicate specifically which, if any, of these initiatives you support. Yes I support the administrations efforts, the CAFE and Paris Targets. However, I think enforcement is the weak link in the success of these efforts. 4) Do you recognize that most proven reserves of oil, gas, coal, tar sands, shale oil, etc., including on-land and offshore, will have to be left in the ground if catastrophe is to be averted? Please feel free to share your thinking on our carbon budget and the need, moving forward, to limit emissions in order to stay within this. Follow the money. Yes, it should be left in the ground but the Wall Street mentality and the deep investment in fossils is tremendous. 5) Do you support putting a price on carbon? If so, what method do you favor? Yes, place prices on carbon. The carbon tax is a step but it is a slow approach to an increasingly dangerous problem. 6) What else do you propose in terms of governmental action and public policy to address Climate Change? Please be as specific as possible. Again, it is transparency of policy and strong enforcement to carry out the public policy. Any regulation should have teeth and provide swift enforcement.

Mid-Missouri State Senate Districts: We regret that there were not more responses from state senate candidates. We encourage you to contact these candidates and let them know that you would like to know where they stand on the climate. State Senate District 19: Stephen Webber (D) (No response) http://www.votewebber.com/ Caleb Rowden (R) (No response) http://calebrowden.com/ State Senate District 21: ElGene Ver Dught (D) (Responded) No website found Denny Hoskins (R) (No response) http://hoskinsformissouri.com/ William Truman (Bill) Wayne (L) (No response) http://electbillwayne.com/

ElGene Ver Dught Candidate for the 21st Senate District 1) Which energy sources do you favor increased use of over the next decade? Energy sources: solar, wind, water, Resourceful applications and innovations maybe not yet discovered or perfected or accepted yet. 2) Do you accept the reality of human-caused climate change and do you see this as a high priority to be addressed at all levels of governance? Support the concept of climate change. The level of high priority at all levels of governance may take a bit longer. As 12th century Persian poet, Rumi, stated, “Out there, beyond ideas of right-doing and wrong-doing, there is a field. I will meet you there.” Creative energy Convincing some members of climate change may not occur and when it does, it may be a crisis stage. We need to be mindful of these changes and certainly study, analyze and confer on our best options in public policy so that we address these changes in the most positive, forwardthinking manner. 3) Do you support the steps initiated by the Obama administration to address Climate Change, including specifically the EPA Clean Power Plan, the revision of automotive CAFE standards and commitment to the Paris Agreement targets? Please indicate specifically which, if any, of these initiatives you support. At this point, I would need more time to review and to study these specific initiatives and targets. With the help and support of your organization, we can increase public awareness on these initiatives so that more study and education at this level can, together, achieve more understanding and helpful collaboration on this issue. Some states-rights groups may resist any suggestions, recommendations or steps to address climate change if it comes from federal agencies. 4) Do you recognize that most proven reserves of oil, gas, coal, tar sands, shale oil, etc., including on-land and offshore, will have to be left in the ground if catastrophe is to be averted? Please feel free to share your thinking on our carbon budget and the need, moving forward, to limit emissions in order to stay within this. The issue of carbon emissions and limitations will need further and thorough review, study and evaluation before consensus building can begin. It appears from growing research( Bill McKibbens, et. al, that 350 ppm is very close in emissions standards and warnings and switching to more viable solutions are available and attainable if more organizations such as mid-missouri peaceworks wok together to educate and to motivate the incredible resistance to the catastrophic weather patterns affecting the northern hemispheric regions during this decade. More study,

public awareness and education of all levels of government must occur, in order to avert crises pressures of large and continuous climate change such as severe, wide-spread drought and or flooding which, in turn, affects the ability of society to grow, to cultivate, to harvest crops, food, fiber and all related resources, may well motivate legislative bodies to respond more swiftly and more constructively. 5) Do you support putting a price on carbon? If so, what method do you favor? This is a very deep, complicated matter. Perhaps a sales tax or use tax, environmental/survival tax might be considered, reviewed and evaluated along with comprehensive, overall tax reform, balanced formulation of sustainable agricultural production policies that allow our ag-centered industry to be more flexible as we adjust to shifts in how we consider, evaluate, perceive and live within a changing economy which will impact not only Missouri but also our neighboring seven states in the Missouri River Basin and the entire mid-west. 6) What else do you propose in terms of governmental action and public policy to address Climate Change? Please be as specific as possible. These proposals may be small suggestions( from a small seed grows a mighty oak tree) but may prove to be starting points for generating serious discussions and conversations for viable, sustainable public policies: A.

A continued and concerted effort to utilize mediation and facilitation models more and more as a tried and proven method of managing conflicts within this area of climate change so that all participants can be heard respectfully, all options, ideas, and concepts for addressing specific areas can be thought out, and presented so that something we can live with, can be adopted.

B.

Small changes to standard/uniform building codes for new builds in homes and businesses over two stories, include centrifugal turbines in the plumbing system of gray water, which may well generate enough electricity to power the appliances in that structure.

C.

Incremental changes, graduated in small steps, for more efficient and more-energy consciousness of public transport means, methods, costs, benefits balanced with neighborhood/ populations shifts, changes in our state. ( for example. Some countries have experimented with and tried new technologies in high speed trains, for transport of people and cargo, with larger- than-expected outcomes)

D.

Other interesting ideas (not sufficient time or space to elucidate here in this short time span.) For example in K.C., the city council has introduced rain barrel/garden projects to conserve rain water for garden areas.

Congressional Seats Including U.S. Senate and Mid-Missouri U.S. Congressional Districts (includes those only partly in mid-Missouri): We regret that there were not more responses from Federal candidates. We encourage you to contact these candidates and let them know that you would like to know where they stand on the climate. U.S. Senate: Jason Kander (D) (No response) https://www.jasonkander.com/ Roy Blunt (R) (No response) https://www.royblunt.com/ Jonathan Dine (L) (No response) https://www.facebook.com/vote4dine/ Fred Ryman (C) (No response) http://voteforfred.org/ Johnathan McFarland (G) (Responded) http://missourigreenparty.org/jonathanmcfarland/ U.S. Representative District 3: Kevin Miller (D) (No response) (No website found) Blaine Luetkemeyer (R) (No response) http://www.blaineforcongress.com/ Dan Hogan (L) (Responded) https://www.facebook.com/hogan4congress2016/ Doanita Simmons (C) (No response) https://www.facebook.com/DoanitaSimmons4Congress2016-583140218521355/ U.S. Representative District 4: Gordon Christensen (D) (No response) http://www.christensenforcongress.com/ Vicky Hartzler (R) (No response) http://www.vickyhartzler.com/ Mark Bliss (L) (No response)

http://www.bliss4congress.com/ U.S. Representative District 5: Emanuel Cleaver II (D) (No response) http://cleaverforcongress.com/ Jacob Turk (R) (No response) http://www.turkforcongress.com/ Roy Welborn (L) (No response) https://www.facebook.com/RoyWelbornForCongress/ U.S. Representative District 6: David M Blackwell (D) (No response) https://www.facebook.com/blackwell4congress/ Sam Graves (R) (No response) http://www.gravesforcongress.com/ Russ Lee Monchil (L) (No response) https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100008243830354& Mike Diel (G) (Responded) https://www.facebook.com/mikejdiel

Johnathan McFarland Candidate for the U.S. Senate 1) Which energy sources do you favor increased used of over the next decade? I favor an increase in the use of solar energy. Solar installations in the state of Missouri have increased in use and continue to decrease in price; dropping 66% from 2010, 12% of that in 2015 alone. Missouri is now ranked 19th in the nation for installed solar capacity. There are more than 125 solar installations companies in the state, with 21 of those also operating as component manufacturers. Currently, this results in the employment 1,854 people, and provides power to 14,000 homes already using solar. This indicates that we have opportunity and good reason to build more solar manufacturing facilities in Missouri. This increase would create more sustainable jobs and would provide solar power to a greater percentage of the more than 2 million homes in our state. If Missouri were to focus now on the production of solar panels, we would have the opportunity to establish ourselves as a hub of production for the midwest, and increase our state’s revenue and number of manufacturing jobs. I would also like to see resources dedicated to the research and development of hydropower processes that are more environmentally conscious than the traditional dam. We should look to examples, such as the Cornwall Ontario River Energy Project, which started in Ontario, Canada, in 2007. This project is researching the use of water turbines as a source of renewable energy, with minimal environmental impact, to power up to 11,000 homes. A similar project in Missouri could harness the 593,000 cubic feet per second of the mighty Mississippi River, and the Missouri and Ohio rivers, with the potential to power millions of homes in the midwest. Not only would this be a great endeavor to create thousands of new jobs, it would also recognize the Department of Energy’s call for additional use of the renewable resource of hydropower. The Department of Energy states that “...additional hydropower generation will create a large and enduring economic benefit by revitalizing the domestic manufacturing and hydropower industry.” Given the natural resource of flowing water in Missouri, in my opinion, this just makes sense. 2) Do you accept the reality of human-caused climate change and so you see this as a high priority to be addressed at all levels of governance? Yes, I do accept the reality of human-caused climate change and see this as a high priority to be addressed at all levels of government. We need to dedicate significant resources to advancing our understanding of the impacts of our increased reliance on fossil fuels, and recognizing the damage caused by our carbon footprint. We must also work to reduce waste and improve recycling efforts in our state, and across the U.S. I also believe that we must work immediately and diligently to find an alternative to landfills, and find a safer solution to eradicating and eliminating the threat from already existing landfills. This has the potential to create thousands of jobs, from additional manual workers to engineers and scientists tasked with finding these resolutions. We should put a greater emphasis on educating the public about recycling, and composting, not just in schools, but as a requirement for certain government assistance.

Improved management of our waste will help to transform the landscapes of many places across Missouri, and ensure better and safer use of this valuable land. 3) Do you support the steps initiated by the Obama administration to address Climate Change, including specifically the EPA Clean Power Plan, the revision of automotive CAFE standards and commitments to the Paris Agreement targets? Please indicate specifically which, if any, of these initiatives you support. I do not support the EPA Clean Power Plan initiated by the Obama administration or the Paris Climate Agreement, due to the emphasis placed on nuclear power as the singular alternative to fossil fuel. Nuclear power is not a renewable energy source as waste created by nuclear power plants is radioactive for thousands of years after we have discarded it. It is necessary to also take in consideration the amount of water used in nuclear power processing, and uranium mining. In my opinion, both of the above mentioned power plans place their emphasis almost entirely on nuclear energy, and place almost no emphasis on actual renewable power options, such as solar, wind, and hydropower. I support the new CAFE standards for motor vehicles. We should, as a society, always push science and manufacturing toward improvement. The number of vehicle miles people travel per year has tripled in the United States, since 1970. If we allow exponential increase to our travel, without also monitoring and regulating the carbon emissions associated with that travel, we will undoubtedly end up in a greenhouse gas crisis. 4) Do you recognize that most proven reserves of oil, gas, coal, tar sands, shale oil, etc., including on-land and offshore, will have to be left in the ground if catastrophe is to be avoided? Please feel free to share your thinking on our carbon budget and the need, moving forward, to limit emissions in order to stay within this. It is increasingly understood and recognized by scientists that fossil fuels should not be extracted or used as an energy source. We need to work hard to end the consumption of all such nonrenewable resources. We do not fully understand the role that oil and gas play in the function and normal movement of our earth’s crust and tectonic plates. Increased use of the water injection process related to fracking, is now being linked to increased seismic activity in Oklahoma, after years of the relationship being adamantly denied. We need to ensure that we are making a great effort to remove ourselves from our dependence on fossil fuels and increase public awareness regarding the meaning of a “carbon budget.” I find that many people’s indifference to environmental protection is directly related to their belief that their use of energy has little effect on the overall well being of our planet’s atmosphere. In order for everyone to be a part of this resolution, we need to educate the public on the level of their impact, and build trust in our efforts regarding the changes that need to take place to ensure the eventual elimination of mass man-made carbon emission. 5) Do you support putting a price on carbon? If so, what method do you favor?

I do not support putting a price on carbon. I think that we need to remove ourselves from recurring penalties such as these. I believe this places an unnecessary burden on hard-working Americans and corporations alike. Instead of penalizing the use of carbon creating fuels, we should heavily incentivize the use of renewable, clean, energy. If we reward people and corporations for choosing sustainable options, instead of punishing them for remaining with the current standard, we will eventually change that standard. This must also be accompanied by increased pressure on companies manufacturing and selling fossil fuels to alter their practices, and eventually change their fossil fuel production to renewable energy production. 6) What else do you propose in terms of governmental action and public policy to address Climate Change? Please be specific as possible. I propose that we develop scientific research panels, in which people could use their skills and training to help develop technology to eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels. We should incentivise the advanced training of students in fields of science related to this endeavor, with scholarships and grants. This would ensure that we are building a workforce that is prepared to address the very real threat of climate change. I would also like to see an emphasis placed on preserving our national parks, forests, and green spaces, and increasing greenery in heavily populated areas. This is a simple and inexpensive measure that would help to quell the issue of carbon emission, thus improving air quality. By doing this, we can also improve the health and quality of life for hundreds of thousands of Missourians, and millions of Americans.

Dan Hogan Candidate for the U.S. House, Third District 1) Which energy sources do you favor increased use of over the next decade? Wind and solar 2) Do you accept the reality of human-caused climate change and do you see this as a high priority to be addressed at all levels of governance? Yes. I don’t see this as a government priority but as a societal priority. However, the government can play a role in regulating certain areas which can have a major impact. 3) Do you support the steps initiated by the Obama administration to address Climate Change, including specifically the EPA Clean Power Plan, the revision of automotive CAFE standards and commitment to the Paris Agreement targets? Please indicate specifically which, if any, of these initiatives you support. Yes. I think that working towards creating cleaner energy sources is a major step in the right direction, along with actions taken to regulate more efficient and cleaner burning automobiles. While I support any action that will help in improving the environment, I do not support any bill, act, or agreement that would give the UN enforcement authority of the United States, or any other country for that matter. 4) Do you recognize that most proven reserves of oil, gas, coal, tar sands, shale oil, etc., including on-land and offshore, will have to be left in the ground if catastrophe is to be averted? Please feel free to share your thinking on our carbon budget and the need, moving forward, to limit emissions in order to stay within this. I can see validity in that argument, though I will admit that I had not given it much thought from that perspective. I fully support research and development of renewable energy sources which would lead to reduce “mining” of the non-renewable resources listed. 5) Do you support putting a price on carbon? If so, what method do you favor? No. We are taxed enough as it is. I believe that eventually this would be more harmful to individuals who do not have the financial means to become more environmentally friendly. If the tax is passed on to consumers, eventually those people who have less fuel efficient cars, and no way to rectify the matter, would end up paying more. No more taxes. 6) What else do you propose in terms of governmental action and public policy to address Climate Change? Please be as specific as possible. No response to this question.

Mike Diel Candidate for the U.S. House, Sixth District 1) Which energy sources do you favor increased use of over the next decade? Solar and Wind 2) Do you accept the reality of human-caused climate change and do you see this as a high priority to be addressed at all levels of governance? I see human-caused climate change as the number one challenge facing mankind. 3) Do you support the steps initiated by the Obama administration to address Climate Change, including specifically the EPA Clean Power Plan, the revision of automotive CAFE standards and commitment to the Paris Agreement targets? Please indicate specifically which, if any, of these initiatives you support. I support all of the above, even though I don’t think they go far enough. 4) Do you recognize that most proven reserves of oil, gas, coal, tar sands, shale oil, etc., including on-land and offshore, will have to be left in the ground if catastrophe is to be averted? Please feel free to share your thinking on our carbon budget and the need, moving forward, to limit emissions in order to stay within this. Absolutely all proven reserves need to stay in the ground. We have the technology to do this, it’s the political will that’s stopping us. (get money out of politics) 5) Do you support putting a price on carbon? If so, what method do you favor? Yes I do support putting a price on carbon. 6) What else do you propose in terms of governmental action and public policy to address Climate Change? Please be as specific as possible. I decided years ago that we will Not do what needs to be done until we quit financing our elections with fossil fuel money. Over and over again Peaceworks has shown we have the technology to live sustainably. We just don’t have the political will.

Missouri Statewide Offices We regret that there were not more responses from statewide candidates. We encourage you to contact these candidates and let them know that you would like to know where they stand on the climate. Governor: Chris Koster (D) (No response) http://chriskoster.com/ Eric Greitens (R) (No response) https://ericgreitens.com Cisse W Spragins (L) (No response) http://electspragins.com/ Don Fitz (G) (Responded) http://fitz4mogov.com/ Lester Benton (Les) Turilli, Jr. (I) (No response) http://www.governor2016.com/ Lt. Governor: Russ Carnahan (D) (No response) http://russcarnahanformissouri.com/ Mike Parson (R) (No response) http://www.mikeparson.com/ Steven R. Hedrick (L) (Response, but did not answer the questions) https://www.facebook.com/stevenhedrickcampaign/ Jennifer Leach (G) (Responded) https://www.facebook.com/JenniferLeachForLtGovernor/ Secretary of State: Robin Smith (D) (No response) http://www.robinsmith2016.com/ John (Jay) Ashcroft (R) (No response) http://ashcroftformissouri.com/ Chris Morrill (L) (No response) http://vote.chrismorrill.com/

Treasurer: Judy Baker (D) (No response) http://www.showmebaker.com/ Eric Schmitt (R) (No response) http://schmittformissouri.com/ Sean O'Toole (L) (No response) http://otoole4mo.com/ Carol Hexem (G) (Responded) https://www.facebook.com/greenpartymissouristatetreasurer/ Attorney General: Teresa Hensley (D) (No response) http://www.teresahensley.com/ Josh Hawley (R) (No response) https://joshhawley.com/

Don Fitz Candidate for Governor 1) Which energy sources do you favor increased use of over the next decade? Missouri and the rest of the US should increase energy conservation, which is not an increase, but a decrease in energy usage. It is essential for coping with the climate crisis. Increased use of solar, wind, geothermal and energy efficiency will help resolve the crisis if and only if they are accompanied by a greater decrease in energy from fossil fuels, nuclear power and hydropower dams (which destroy homes, farmland and aquatic ecosystems). 2) Do you accept the reality of human-caused climate change and do you see this as a high priority to be addressed at all levels of governance? Climate change is as real as the earth is round and must be at the center of all levels of government as it is perhaps the greatest threat to human existence (along with dangers of loss of biodiversity and increase in toxins). Climate change is actually caused by corporations. 3) Do you support the steps initiated by the Obama administration to address Climate Change, including specifically the EPA Clean Power Plan, the revision of automotive CAFE standards and commitment to the Paris Agreement targets? Please indicate specifically which, if any, of these initiatives you support. I totally support portions of the EPA Clean Power Plan (CPP) relating to fossil fuels, the revision of automotive CAFE standards and commitment to the Paris Agreement targets because they are essential first steps, even if inadequate. I oppose portions of the CPP relying on existing nuclear power plants, which should be dismantled. A meaningful plan would go beyond these and devise ways to use less energy with no loss in quality of life or jobs. [See No. 6.] 4) Do you recognize that most proven reserves of oil, gas, coal, tar sands, shale oil, etc., including on-land and offshore, will have to be left in the ground if catastrophe is to be averted? Please feel free to share your thinking on our carbon budget and the need, moving forward, to limit emissions in order to stay within this. In addition to the adage of “Leave the coal in the hole; leave the oil in the soil, leave the tar sand in the land,” we must address the abomination of fracking. Therefore, I add: “Leave the gas in the corporate ass.” As Governor of Missouri, I will establish an Extraordinary Commission on Climate Change which will include economists, earth scientists, social justice and environmental activists, as well as union, civil rights and community leaders to devise a plan for the most rapid decrease in the use of fossil fuels possible with no loss in the quality of life or jobs. [See No. 6.] 5) Do you support putting a price on carbon? If so, what method do you favor?

The best way to put a price on carbon is to tax it as it comes out of the ground. We could also issue a carbon ration card to every citizen which would be used with every purchase to record the embodied carbon in the purchase. [See No. 6.] 6) What else do you propose in terms of governmental action and public policy to address Climate Change? Please be as specific as possible. My program for governmental action and public policy is based on the premise that we can limit energy production while ensuring [a] a continued quality of life, [b] that no one loses a job, and [c] that decisions are made by those affected by climate change. a. Continued quality of life. Accepting the horror of climate change is based on the assumption that people are happier purchasing a massive quantity of junk, that the “economy” must provide an unlimited amount of energy extraction and that sufficient military power must be used to ensure that this happens. Instead of increasing the objects that people buy, a human economy would focus on necessities such as Medicare for All, providing homes for the homeless, college education without debt and food free of pesticides, herbicides and genetic contamination. Until we recognize that we can satisfy the needs of Missouri, the US and the world with far less manufacturing and transportation of fall-apart commodities, then we are not confronting sources of and genuine solutions for climate change. b. No one loses a job. We must guarantee jobs for all who work in coal production, nuclear plants, and dam construction as we transition to using less energy and a greater proportion of renewable energy. Unions and non-unionized workers must be involved in designing every step of this transition, which will almost certainly require reducing the work week. c. Decisions made by those affected. How could we develop plans for using less energy? One example of involving those affected is urban transportation. Missouri city governments need to work with urban planners and all citizens to make it possible for families to make 80% of their trips by walking and cycling, 80% of their remaining trips by mass transportation, and use rented cars only for the few remaining trips. This would require asking people in every neighborhood how essential shopping and services could be made accessible without automobiles. Another example of the type of discussion needed is carbon rationing. One of the most sensible proposals is for everyone to receive a carbon ration card which would be used with every purchase to record the carbon embodied in that purchase. A monthly carbon limit would be implemented wherein purchases would be taxed, restricted or halted when the limit for a given month is reached. Upon implementation, the imposed monthly limit would be 100% of the current average carbon usage. This will result in reduction of the current usage by those individuals who have a heavier carbon footprint, thereby expanding available carbon limits to others. Continual feedback from users will be an essential part of the overall goal in reducing monthly limits.

These two examples are not meant as blueprints which must be followed, but rather as illustrations of the intensity of proposals needed if we are to survive as a people. Policy changes that are as dramatic as these can only be attained by democratic decision-making which includes people from all walks of life. There must be thorough discussions even more intense than those that led people to embrace rationing during WWII and the social changes of the civil rights movement. Climate change is the ultimate form of environmental racism. It affects people of color first with the most intense health damage and will exterminate communities of color across the globe. Therefore, activists of color will have a prominent role in the Extraordinary Commission on Climate Change and all social planning to halt climate change. Since the military increases its carbon use during every war, we must discuss reducing our own military and developing a peace initiative to put an end to wars for oil (and other sources of energy). The decisions that we need to make are too important to be left to generals, corporations and their politicians. Discussions and votes must be at the national, state, county, municipal and neighborhood levels and include involvement of every religion, school, union, social justice and environmental organization and every other group willing to address the most serious problem confronting humanity.

Steven Hedrick Candidate for Lt. Governor Steven Hedrick did not answer our questionnaire. One of his campaign staff did, however, respond to our request with an offer to supply answers, but only if we paid for them. Here is the interaction between Hedrick’s campaign aide Randy and Peaceworks Director Mark Haim: Steven Hedrick Campaign: From the campaign team: Thank You for your message. No surveys will be returned by the campaign team this year without financial compensation based on the amount of publicity that your organization receives from the surveys. Organizations demand that candidates supply them with information for free in hopes to facilitate their organizations standing and visibility. Surveys cost the candidate and their team money and valuable time that could be spent better elsewhere. You will find less and less candidates every year responding to organization surveys based on the increasing number of them and the inflated demands by them. If your members agree to supply funding in compensation for the work performed, then information will be supplied so you can use it to increase your prestige and visibility. No guarantees that the information supplied will be in favor or against the beliefs of your organization. It will simply be honest answers to the questions, which won't be reviewed without compensation. That is probably not the answer you wanted, but you are an organization with an agenda to raise money and promote your interests, not a voter with simple questions that do deserve answers. If you don't like that position you are more than free to vote for another candidate. Good luck with your efforts. Randy Our Response: Hello Randy, Thanks for getting back with me. We respect your choice. I will note that we have not "demanded" that you respond, simply offered you the opportunity to let the voters know where your candidate stands. We're not doing this for money, but rather to promote the public interest. We will share the information that candidates provide, and, of course, cannot provide this information from others who choose not to participate. All the best, Mark Steven Hedrick Campaign: I honestly didn't look at it enough to anything but qualify it as a candidate survey, so honestly don't know how it was worded. You pretty much got a form letter so apologies if it wasn't 100% on target. I have been doing this for over a decade and the volume of organization requests increase and they get more demanding all the time. Tried filling them out the first few election cycles and none of this increased candidate support, just attempts to get candidate time and money out of them (will you please attend our community ice cream social on the other side of the state at your cost, at least 10 people will show up) and at some point you have to take a stand and say stop this nonsense, we will campaign where we want to campaign and to who we want to campaign to and any organization that wants to profit from the campaign will have to kick in something. You have been doing this a long time. I actually know you in person or at least have met you at events. You know also that it is getting harder and harder to get responses out of candidate on these. A review of the average website shows a huge percentage of these go unanswered. Most of the candidates and parties are getting increasingly pissed off at the demands and are choosing to boycott stuff like this. Have a good evening.

Jennifer Leach Candidate for Lt. Governor 1) Which energy sources do you favor increased use of over the next decade? Solar, Wind, Water 2) Do you accept the reality of human-caused climate change and do you see this as a high priority to be addressed at all levels of governance? Yes! Climate change threatens to disrupt human civilization globally including agriculture, which Missouri depends on. 3) Do you support the steps initiated by the Obama administration to address Climate Change, including specifically the EPA Clean Power Plan, the revision of automotive CAFE standards and commitment to the Paris Agreement targets? Please indicate specifically which, if any, of these initiatives you support. We must take aggressive action immediately to address the climate crisis. The Obama Administration's current steps mentioned in Question 3 do not go far enough and lull us into thinking we are making sufficient progress. In addition to the efforts the Administration has already taken, we must leave most fossil fuels in the ground, stop fracking, and stop building new fossil fuel infrastructure that threatens our water as well as our climate. We need a national mobilization to shift to a Green Economiy, similar to how the country mobilized in World War 2. 4) Do you recognize that most proven reserves of oil, gas, coal, tar sands, shale oil, etc., including on-land and offshore, will have to be left in the ground if catastrophe is to be averted? Please feel free to share your thinking on our carbon budget and the need, moving forward, to limit emissions in order to stay within this. As already mentioned, I recognize that around 80% of proven fossil fuel reserves must be left in the ground to escape dangerous climate change. I believe it is possible and necessary to transition to 100% clean energy by 2030. Government must lead the way in mobilizing society to make this transition. This shift makes economic sense for Missouri since we currently send huge amounts of money out of state to import coal, which we rely on for 80% of our electricity. That money could instead go into the pockets of Missourians who produce clean energy in this state. 5) Do you support putting a price on carbon? If so, what method do you favor? I do not support fossil fuel extraction. But if it does occur, companies must pay for the full costs to society and our environment. A high carbon tax at the source of extraction would serve to capture this cost. This would send price signals throughout the market to make clean energy more attractive, competitive, and speed its use. The carbon tax could be repaid to the the people

(fee & dividend) so as not to penalize the poor. In addition, cutting our bloated military budget would free up government funds to pay for clean energy for low income households such as solar panels on their homes. 6) What else do you propose in terms of governmental action and public policy to address Climate Change? Please be as specific as possible. We must take care of the workers in the fossil fuel industry to help them transition to different employment. These are hardworking people who want meaningful jobs building America and earning a wage that allows them to take care of their families. A program that pays them to learn to work in the clean energy industry would ensure that they don't bear the costs of the transition to a clean energy economy and it would create a pool of skilled workers that we need to quickly ramp up our clean energy infrastructure. Beyond the fossil fuel industry, there are other sectors like the automotive industry that will have to change. I envision a similar program to ensure that these workers are not left behind. While a shift to clean energy will stimulate the economy and create jobs, we cannot leave workers to fend for themselves. As a union member, I want them to know that I have their backs throughout this shift. We need to give permanent tax incentives to businesses and middle class households to adopt clean energy infrastructure and to make energy efficiency improvements. I am a big supporter of net metering, which has proven successful to get people to shift to clean energy. The main obstacle has been obstruction from utitility companies and that behavior must end. In order to give the public more control over their energy sources, I support public ownership of utilities. No more destroying the world and our health for private profit. Decentralizing the electrical grid is another piece of the puzzle. Inter-connected community solar gardens would create a much more resilient, cost effective, and democratic power grid. Along with incentives for clean energy, we must eliminate subsidies for dirty energy. This step will reduce the amount of money needed for the incentives and will save the public money. The clean energy transition is not just about the electricity in our buildings though. We have to tackle transportation, especially in the midwest where public transportation is often neglected in favor of cars. Investing heavily in modern high speed trains would be good for the climate, clear the vehicle congestion from our streets and roads, make transportation safer, improve our air quality and health, and help the poor with one of the major hurdles to thriving. High speed train and light rail technology are already in use in many other areas of the world. We can embrace it and see the benefits in Missouri as well. Missouri can play major role in reducing climate change and ecosystem destruction because we are an agricultural state. Farming under current practices is responsible for 14% of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. However, farming can be part of the solution! By switching to organic farming, and using practices such as no till farming, we can create soil that better

sequesters carbon and we can reduce the amount of fossil fuels needed for farming. I want to restore family farms and localized food systems. Big agriculture companies have devastated both family farming and the ecosystem we rely on for our food. These large industrial farming systems are vulnerable to collapse and lack the resiliency of a network of local food production. I want to get rid of Confined Animal Feed Operations that foul the air and water of nearby communities and create misery for the animals involved. We must restore the symbiotic connection between farmers and the animals and plants they care for. Government has sided with these Big Agriculture corporations and enabled them. I will work to end that destructive partnership.

Carol Hexem Candidate for State Treasurer 1) Which energy sources do you favor increased use of over the next decade? I favor increase use of wind, geothermal, and solar. 2) Do you accept the reality of human-caused climate change and do you see this as a high priority to be addressed at all levels of governance? Yes, I believe climate change has happened, and human activities have certainty caused the observed increase global temperature increases. 3) Do you support the steps initiated by the Obama administration to address Climate Change, including specifically the EPA Clean Power Plan, the revision of automotive CAFE standards and commitment to the Paris Agreement targets? Please indicate specifically which, if any, of these initiatives you support. I support President Obama’s stance and commitment to the Paris agreement and targets, however I believe it is largely symbolic. The United States is a Corporation Government, not a Democracy and largely makes decisions based on the benefit of the corporations running our country. Because there is no enforcement mechanism, I believe our government will take little or no action to address climate change. I also believe it doesn’t go far enough, if COP 21 is completely fulfilled, it would not meet the goal of 2 degrees Celsius. 4) Do you recognize that most proven reserves of oil, gas, coal, tar sands, shale oil, etc., including on-land and offshore, will have to be left in the ground if catastrophe is to be averted? Please feel free to share your thinking on our carbon budget and the need, moving forward, to limit emissions in order to stay within this. We must keep fossil-fuel reserves underground. If we dig up coal, oil and gas, and burn them we will definitely overwhelm our planets systems, heating the Earth far past its ability to handle this. Keeping fossil-fuels underground is a must. 5) Do you support putting a price on carbon? If so, what method do you favor? Yes I support a tax to polluters, in our Corporate Government it is the only way the largest polluters/climate changers will respond. My guess is it should be larger than the profit they would have made digging up our underground reserves. 6) What else do you propose in terms of governmental action and public policy to address Climate Change? Please be as specific as possible.

We must move to 100% renewable energy sources, along with less consumption. This would include more public transportation, viable safe biking options and conservation practices. It should also be noted that because climate change has happened, and although we don’t know exactly how devastating this will be for humanity and all life, I believe it is imperative to have someone at the helm, especially in the United States, whose actions affect all nations, with a will and a plan for a peaceful change to a post climate change environment.