Paul Glover, Green
Humans have become the most powerful influence on climate change due to increased mining, drilling, transport and destruction of habitat for cropland. Climate change will not be reversed by public policy alone but by massive shifts in economy, culture and infrastructure such that civilization balances with nature. I’ve started more than a dozen organizations and campaigns dedicated to this process, written six books explaining how and taught these themes at two universities.

Kenneth Krawchuk, Libertarian
Climate change is not a state issue; it’s a planetary thing and, therefore, under federal and international guidance. There’s not much any governor could do. Regardless, my degree is in physics, so I have a reasonable background to understand the arguments on both sides. When I was in college, the prevailing scientific opinion was that we’re entering a new Ice Age. Today it’s the opposite, even though no appreciable warming has occurred since 1998. To sum up, I believe the science is not yet settled.

Jocolyn Bowser-Bostick, Green
There have been many hundreds of credible scientific studies that have given evidence to show global warming is real, has accelerated over the past decades and has already caused multiple observed changes in many ecosystems. For over 100 years, scientists have been keeping global temperature records and 17 of the 18 warmest years have occurred since 2001.

We are not doing enough to slow down or eliminate the human actions driving climate change.

Kathleen Smith, Libertarian
I accept that the climate is changing, with both rising temperatures and CO2 levels. I retain some skepticism about the speed of change and, most of all, about how to address it. My largest concern is the way that advocacy groups and world governments are confronting it. The Paris Accord defined specific goals that can only be reached at great expense. And, because pollution tends to be worst in underdeveloped countries, they will bear much of the burden or simply not make the needed changes.

Lindsey Williams, Democrat
I believe that the only place that there is a serious debate over whether human-made emissions are driving climate change is within the Republican Party. I side with the vast majority of scientists and experts who have provided evidence, showing that man-made climate change is a significant problem and that not only are we not doing enough to address this issue, but that even drastic changes may not be able to reverse the damages that have already been done.

Wayne Fontana, Democrat
The fact that there are still climate change deniers among us is unsettling. I do not believe we are doing enough to address it, especially given that our leaders in Washington have pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord. It’s apparently now up to us at the state and local level to do what we can to implement provisions and try to attain the collective goals set forth in the accord that has been accepted the world over.

Pennsylvania can be the leader that our current federal government elected officials are not willing to be. This is why I introduced with my colleagues.

Robert Matzie, Democrat
The scientific evidence and consensus among experts is overwhelming. But it’s an uphill climb to change human behavior, especially in the face of a danger that is gradual by nature.

Sara Innamorato, Democrat
The scientific community has been clear since the 2007 landmark study published by the Columbia University Earth Institute that found 350 parts per million of CO2 in our atmosphere as a critical and immediate need to act on anthropogenic climate change. The top five hottest years in recorded history are 2016, 2017, 2015, 2014 and 2013 in that order.

We are not doing enough to address the issues caused by climate change in Pennsylvania.

As a member of the General Assembly, I will fight vehemently for policies that reduce CO2, methane and other human-made emissions more aggressively than we are at the present moment. In the short term, I support a severance tax on the oil and gas industry that would fill the funding gap of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, which is currently dangerously underfunded. Restoring funding would allow our inspectors the resources to get back to work to protect us. I also believe a statewide moratorium on fracking is necessary to address the damage the oil and gas industry has done to our environment and our public health.

We’ve seen over recent years with landslides and homes flooding that climate change is having a real impact on residents in the 21st District. I support the creation of a mitigation fund that would help localities and households deal with the real-life consequences of our negligent climate policies and help them plan for a more sustainable future.

Dan Frankel, Democrat
It would be the height of arrogance to believe that I have greater access to the truth about global climate change than the brilliant men and women who dedicate their lives to studying the subject. We've been told some of the steps we need to take to try to slow down what could be irreversible damage with devastating impacts. We must put concentrated focus on reducing carbon and methane emissions, including reliance on fossil fuels and limiting methane leaks.

Jay Ting Walker, Green
We're seeing the effects of climate change right before our eyes with rising global temperatures, warming oceans, shrinking polar ice, rising seas and increased extreme weather events. We see the effects here in Pittsburgh with frequent intense rains leading to flooding all across the county. I do not believe we as a state are doing enough to address it. We have some plans in place but the plans are not aggressive enough. We need to move our state away from fossil fuels rather than deepening our investment in them by creating a regional petrochemical industry as we are now.

Emily Skopov, Democrat
Yes, I believe climate change is very real, very dangerous and we must come up with very real solutions. While we are not yet able to rely exclusively on renewable energy, sustainability without pollution must be our goal, and we must begin taking serious actions to get there.

Betsy Monroe, Democrat
Yes, the science is clear that climate change is real and it’s caused by human activities. No, we have been slow in making the changes that are needed.

Sharon Guidi, Democrat
Over 97 percent of scientists agree that carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels and land-use change, meaning human activity, is the central driver in the warming of our planet and the changing of our climate. Pennsylvania needs to do more to address climate change and ensure residents are able to deal with the effects of climate change. We have seen historic flooding in the 40th District many times over the past year, and these heavy-rainfall events will become more common unless we act to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Little to no planning was done to consider the effects of housing developments on the hillsides of Western Pennsylvania, so local governments need to have the tools and resources to keep their residents safe as flooding and landslides become more common.

Michele Knoll, Democrat
Overwhelming scientific evidence suggests it’s true. We are not doing enough to address it.

Byron Timmins, Democrat
The debate over human contributions to climate change ended long ago; the only question that remains is what we are willing to do to solve it. At present, the answer is far too little.

Given that the realities of its impact have long been known but our collective efforts to properly address are lagging at best, I believe a revised approach is in order.

While we must continue to push for renewable energy and carbon mitigation policies, we must also reconsider how we approach not just politicians, but also ourselves. A renewed call to action has the benefit of reminding everyone that their personal choices can have an impact, while also encouraging buy-in that leads to pressuring their elected officials to support more environmentally friendly solutions as well. As to the former, we need to better underscore the impact of household-level decision making and promote personal investment, such as recycling, composting, ride sharing and so many other things we can all do.

Jon McCabe, Democrat
There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that suggests our climate is changing due to emissions. We are not currently doing enough to address this problem. There are many climate scientists who state we must do more within the next 10 to 15 years or we will see devastating effects.

Bob Casey, Jr., Democrat
We can create jobs and protect an environment for all Pennsylvanians. I advocated for bringing the Shell cracker plant to Pennsylvania and believe the jobs it will bring to the region will help Pennsylvania families. I will do whatever I can to keep Pennsylvania competitive.

Dale Kerns, Jr., Libertarian
It is an extremely delicate balance between jobs and the environment. As a U.S. senator, I would not want to rule via legislative fiat how the private sector should strike that balance. While Washington is often well-intentioned in preserving the environment, it does not receive the same market signals that private companies do. Rather than government needlessly intervening, corporations, workers and consumers will ultimately come up with the best solutions.

Neal Gale, Green
While jobs are important to the well-being of a community, I believe we have to begin to assess the nature of the jobs in light of their impact on the health of the people in the community and the environment, including the climate. This is particularly relevant regarding jobs in the extracted fossil fuel industries. Not only do they produce local pollution and toxins that end up in our water and soils, creating unhealthy conditions for residents for miles around, these jobs are bringing carbon to the surface that will ultimately be burned and released into the atmosphere, where, along with the other greenhouse gases that are released, like methane, exacerbate climate change.

I also believe that we should focus on creating renewable energy jobs to support the transition to 100 percent clean, renewable energy sources.

Jocolyn Bowser-Bostick, Green
The Shell ethane cracker plant should not be built in Potter Township or anywhere else because it is supporting the continued and expanded extraction of natural gas and natural gas products via the environmentally damaging process of fracking. The short-term and long-term jobs that will be created are not an acceptable trade-off vs. the millions of people whose health will be ruined and life spans shortened because of the millions of tons of pollutants that will be created by this plant.

Kathleen Smith, Libertarian
As someone whose family has lived here for generations, the improvement in the areas’ air and water has been astonishing and something that I would hate to see in danger. For the region, the Shell plant has the ability to provide a much-needed economic benefit. The jobs at the plant itself will be supplemented by associated industrial and transportation jobs and eventually with service jobs in food and retail. Job security does have positive effects on physical and mental health. And, of course, that benefit is stronger if the employers provide health insurance, as most major companies do.

Lindsey Williams, Democrat
I do not believe that we need to choose between good paying jobs and protecting our environment. While I am a strong supporter of transitioning to as much renewable energy as possible, I would not support doing so at the expense of our workers. Pennsylvania has always been a leader in energy; we should continue to be innovators in the field by taking advantage of the experienced workforce and technological capabilities that our region has to offer.

Wayne Fontana, Democrat
I believe that balancing innovation with our responsibility as stewards of our environment is always key and both are important factors. An estimated 6,000 workers will be needed to build up the cracker, which, when completed, will employ 600 in operational jobs. Once operational, the plant is expected to boost manufacturing throughout the region. During both construction and operation, it will be imperative for the state Department of Environmental Protection to strictly monitor air quality and emissions from the plant.

Robert Matzie, Democrat
I disagree with the premise of the question. I don’t think it’s an “either/or” proposition and it’s that sort of thinking, frankly, that has helped cloud the issue because both are possible.

Sara Innamorato, Democrat
The long-term health effects of the cracker plant and all of the emissions from trucks coming and going from the plant will not positively impact the air quality in our region. We know that Allegheny County already has youth asthma rates 50 percent higher than the national average and Beaver County should not be eager to join Allegheny County in this statistic.

As a state, we could be investing the nearly $2 billion subsidizing the Shell cracker plant, a private industry, into job creation in the public sector. Projects like rebuilding our aging bridges and roads, constructing affordable housing or installing high-speed broadband in the most rural parts of our state would create family-sustaining, union jobs while addressing inequality, improving living standards for all members of the community, reducing poverty and cleaning our environment.

To put it in perspective, this multibillion dollar investment in the cracker plant will produce 400 to 500 new jobs. A recent proposal by New York, where fracking is banned, the same investment in renewables, like solar and wind, is projected to create an estimated 40,000 jobs.

Dan Frankel, Democrat
The blue-green alliance between unions and environmental groups shows us that jobs and environmental health don't have to be pitted against each other. Jobs that come from work in any industry that will have an environmental impact should be coupled with jobs from regulators, ensuring that work is done in a responsible sustainable manner with protection of human health at the center.

Jay Ting Walker, Green
The air and water pollution stemming from the Shell ethane cracker plant, the subsequent plants that will come and the intensified fracking that occurs will cause long-term damage to the health of our region. This damage far outweighs the benefits of a few hundred permanent jobs from the Shell ethane cracker plant. The climate change impacts alone make the plant not worth its construction. Instead of providing massive subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, we should be providing those subsidies for wind, solar and green retrofitting.

Emily Skopov, Democrat
I believe that job creation is a priority within our community. That being said, environmental stewardship is paramount. We must make Pennsylvania an appealing destination for businesses in the green energy sector. Those organizations will provide much needed jobs and revenue as we begin building an infrastructure for 21st century energy needs and boost our economy while aiding our environment. This is a win-win.

Betsy Monroe, Democrat
For the long-term health of the region we definitely need to invest in building infrastructure for renewable energy. The Shell cracker plant is designed and built to take maximum advantage of another fossil fuel. That’s a significant but still limited resource that has been poorly regulated by the state. Pennsylvania’s regulations are inconsistently enforced, and we’ve left money on the table by failing to impose a severance tax. In the current system and structure, I believe the plant imposes too many risks with too little benefit.

Sharon Guidi, Democrat
The state gave $1.65 billion in tax credits to Shell, a multinational corporation with over $300 billion in revenue during 2017, to convince them to build the cracker plant in Beaver County. Building the plant will create a few thousand construction jobs, yet only 600 permanent jobs will be located at the cracker plant. For only 600 permanent jobs, $1.65 billion seems like a mismanagement of government funds, especially when state environmental protection programs continue to receive less and less funding. Government subsidies should not be going to dirty fossil fuel projects that contribute to climate change and pollute our air and water.

Michele Knoll, Democrat
It is important to make sure that the Shell ethane cracker plant is held to very high standards in controlling its air emissions and aqueous discharges to ensure the long-term health of the residents of the region.

Byron Timmins, Democrat
The balance between environmental and economic responsibility is always a difficult one. The Shell cracker plant, though outside my district, does present the opportunity for job creation.

While an economic benefit from the cracker plant exists, we must take more responsibility for the direct effects those economic decisions cause. Southwestern Pennsylvania is only recently emerging from the smog of our steel-based history.

This project moves away from that crucial progress we’ve made as a region, and places short-term gain above long-term benefit. Recent studies have demonstrated that the job growth gleaned from this plant would be temporary at best.

Jon McCabe, Democrat
The air and water pollution stemming from its operations. The impact on the environment may take many years to reverse, which may end up costing us more economically.

Paul Glover, Green
Summarily shut down any severe pollution point sources that cannot be promptly remedied. Replace these with green jobs, which clean water and air. I favor a range of economic development tools that expedite this process.

Kenneth Krawchuk, Libertarian
As an asthma sufferer myself, I can appreciate the necessity. Pardon me for repeating myself, but the best way to protect the environment is to treat pollution as a trespass.

Bob Casey, Jr., Democrat
I have supported federal legislation to curb emissions from a variety of sources and support taking steps to ensure that people are protected from harmful chemicals, while protecting jobs and encouraging new clean technologies.

Dale Kerns, Jr., Libertarian
If companies willingly or negligently pollute, they should certainly be held accountable in the court system, as this is a property trespass. Government prior restraints, while well-intentioned, too often favor the biggest companies over small businesses. Rather than the current bureaucracy, which grants allowances to corporations that can afford them, a property-based system without EPA red tape would even the playing field between different sized companies and prevent further pollution.

Neal Gale, Green
Similar to reducing pollution from operations that extract and distribute fossil fuels, reducing any major pollution source can only have a positive impact on the health and well-being of residents living nearby. Eventually, [pollutants] find their way into the water and soil and since people are drinking the water and farming the land, this must be weighed against the products being produced and the people being supported by the industries.

Western Pennsylvania is experiencing increasingly warmer weather, which only worsens the effects of air pollution. I recognize that industrial pollution has become normalized over generations as a necessary cost of the economic success of a community, but I suggest it is time we question the validity of that assumption.

Lindsey Williams, Democrat
Western Pennsylvania has made strides in improving our air quality; however, there is always additional room for improvement. I believe the first step is to implement stronger whistleblower protections so that employees who witness violations of clean air regulations can feel unrestrained to come forward and report those violations. Doing so will help to enforce restrictions that are already in place, which will allow us to determine what additional measures would be most useful to further improve air quality.

Wayne Fontana, Democrat
Under the Clean Power Plan, Pennsylvania was required to reduce its emissions by 29 million tons, or 24 percent below 2012 levels, by 2030. Pennsylvania is well positioned to meet this target, given its current transition from coal generation and growing investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Acts far as large commercial and industrial users of energy are concerned, I believe they must remain part of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation (EE&C) Plans under going further in future phases.

Robert Matzie, Democrat
Make sure that EPA and state Department of Environmental Protection standards are vigorously enforced. Hold operators accountable for violations. We should be doing everything in our power. In my judgment, industry and the environment can co-exist and thrive.

Sara Innamorato, Democrat
Our families simply cannot afford our region’s poor air quality.

As residents, we are becoming increasingly burdened by the rising out-of-pocket costs of healthcare. We are also seeing an increase in cases of asthma in children and adults. For many families, that means choosing between paying for your child’s asthma medicine so she can breathe or a bag of groceries to feed their family a healthy meal.

There are broader economic costs when students are too ill to go to school or adults must miss work due to asthma. For every missed school day, a child becomes less likely to succeed in their academic career, has less access to opportunity and thus reaches a lower economic potential. At scale, it means a less well-performing workforce.

According to the American Lung Association’s State of the Air report from 2018, Allegheny County, in particular, received straight F grades for ozone, daily particulate matter levels and long-term particulate levels. A three-year study released in 2017 found asthma prevalences upwards of 22 percent locally compared to national estimates of about 9 percent and state estimates of 10 percent.

Simply put, the lack of legislation protecting our communities and lack of funding for a regulatory enforcement agency is a moral failure of our General Assembly. Corporations making billions in profits should never come at the cost of our children’s or community's well being.

Dan Frankel, Democrat
Allegheny County fined Clairton Coke Works $1 million this summer for the company’s chronic air pollution, and that was a good first step in making it clear that we expect industry to take health effects seriously. We should be enforcing existing laws vigorously. Certainly, as individuals, we need to protect lungs from the air pollution of tobacco smoke. We need to limit outdoor burning. But taking individual actions to reduce particulate matter seems hollow if we don't require large companies to also limit pollution. That's not just Clairton Coke Works, but also drilling companies that are having a negative impact on the air quality in rural Pennsylvania.

Jay Ting Walker, Green
We need to shut down the Clairton Coke Works and other local point-source polluters while working to make sure that those who were working there are smoothly transitioned to other work. This is happening in New York State with the Tonawanda Coke Facility. Our local point-source polluters violate air regulations regularly with the Clairton Coke Works being an extra flagrant violator. Pennsylvania also needs to pass stricter regulation giving the county health department the tools to crack down on emissions. The health costs being paid by so many in our county are not worth the economic benefits for a few.

Emily Skopov, Democrat
I founded my nonprofit based on the principle of “reuse and recycle.” I have spent years working on behalf of the environment and to reduce waste and will not yield this central belief in Harrisburg. Every Pennsylvanian has a right to clean air and water. These are not aesthetic needs, but critical to health and quality of life. I will fight to protect our environment and to grow our investments in industries that benefit our economy in environmentally safe ways.

Betsy Monroe, Democrat
Pittsburgh has come a long way from its smoky steel town image, yet Allegheny County still has some of the worst air quality in the country. That’s because Harrisburg politicians are in the pocket of gas and oil companies. There is no other explanation for the rolling back of regulations for air quality and decreased funding to monitor our air and water. I never have and never will take corporate PAC money from the gas and oil industry.

Sharon Guidi, Democrat
The degraded air quality in Western Pennsylvania consistently endangers the health and well-being of all communities. Allowing natural gas companies to flare methane and small pockets of natural gas contributes significantly to the poor air quality of our region. We need to uphold and strengthen clean car standards. We need to encourage solar and wind energy production, sources that are clean and do not pollute our air. We need to encourage technological innovation that allows industrial sites to improve efficiency at the same time as decreasing air pollution.

Michele Knoll, Democrat
Air quality needs to be improved nationwide by reducing auto emissions, and the commercial and industrial facilities both locally and upwind need tighter controls. By looking at the upset events that often get overlooked in monthly emission calculations, the state Department of Environmental Protection [DEP] needs to go back to the facilities with timely data and put pressure on the facilities to reduce the upsets. The DEP needs to be funded at higher levels to adequately, and consistently staff the department. The department needs to be equipped with up-to-date monitoring technology, like FLIR [forward-looking infrared] cameras, to be able to effectively produce timely data.

Byron Timmins, Democrat
Our region has come a long way to shed our previous smog-draped reputation. Not only have we imposed higher standards on production facilities, we have transitioned toward industries that are based on academic and research development.

Recent years have seen increased oversight by local authorities, done so in a way that is legitimately impactful. Recent years have also seen favorable trade scenarios that greatly benefit major manufacturers and their profit margins.

Given these favorable conditions, there is room to continue encouraging these corporations to improve their environmental considerations without jeopardizing their already healthy profit margins or, in turn, their workers’ pay or benefits.

Jon McCabe, Democrat
We need to transition to clean and renewable energy sources.

Bob Casey, Jr., Democrat
I am a strong supporter of environmental justice, and it is unacceptable for low-income communities to bear the brunt of the impact of pollution.

I have supported notification requirements for unsafe levels of lead at the federal level. I believe that drinking water must be safe and clean. As a federal official, I have supported numerous efforts to ameliorate unsafe levels of lead exposure, including urging the Senate Appropriations Committee to increase its investment in programs to remove lead from drinking water and in residential and commercial buildings with high levels of lead.

Dale Kerns, Jr., Libertarian
The government has done more harm than good too often to be trusted with such a noble goal. Our impoverished communities are without a doubt disproportionately harmed by pollution, but I would rather that we as a society call upon private companies to do the leg work in innovating and changing so that these Americans are better served.

Neal Gale, Green
Low-income communities, often communities of color, have been the locations for some of the dirtiest, most contaminant-producing industries, including energy -generating industries. These communities trusted government and industry to tell them the truth about the potential dangers of these facilities and have been ignored or lied to. The result has been a disproportionate number of negative health impacts in these communities, also largely ignored by those in a position to help.

I will support regional planning to investigate the removal of these polluting operations and the possible installation of clean, renewable energy generation facilities. I would include in this planning the establishment of community-based organizations to help develop, construct, operate and manage these facilities, with training for local residents to enable their participation and economic benefit.

Paul Glover, Green
My plan to create the Green Labor Administration (GLAD) will employ and empower those who are traditionally left in the dust and toxic clouds. I have proposed the Philadelphia Fund for Ecological Living (PhilaFEL) to deliver tax-exempt donations of solar and energy efficiency tools to the lowest-income neighborhoods.

Special attention to utility-generated pollution is needed in low-income communities and communities of color, where contamination is typically most hazardous. Our state should exceed federal standards and prohibit coal gasification in these areas.

Kenneth Krawchuk, Libertarian
There are many old industrial sites that no one will touch because the full extent of any environmental damage is unknown. So no one even considers buying these properties because they’d be left holding someone else’s bag of pollution, liability claims and all. The result is that the properties sit unused and unbought, an eyesore and an albatross around the neck of their communities. But if the liability were pinned on the original polluter rather than the buyer then more of these properties would be bought and cleaned up without using any taxpayer money. The new owner would not need to fear bankrupting litigation. Everybody would win.

Jocolyn Bowser-Bostick, Green
Government should do more to protect low-income communities that are disproportionately affected by pollution because maintaining good public health and safety standards is one of the important jobs of elected and appointed government officials. Officials can work to close polluting industries, force them to comply with all state and federal environmental laws while they remain open, make sure these industries have the most advanced technology installed that would detect harmful emissions and prevent harmful emissions from escaping into the environment. Municipal governments can facilitate the growth of clean energy businesses and businesses that don’t produce harmful pollutants.

Kathleen Smith, Libertarian
The government has not always dealt well with low-income communities even when it has good intentions. Low-income neighborhoods in Western Pennsylvania are doing reasonably well in this regard because several nonprofit groups have made it a focus, but there are always more opportunities.

Considering this area’s needs, I would suggest that flood control on small and channelized streams, community gardens and rehabilitated open spaces, and renovation or removal of dilapidated structures are relatively low-cost measures that can have great impact in communities, both in the physical and social environment. Flood control must be handled by government because of the redundant layers of authority involved, but it should be a high priority because the loss of property leaves poor neighborhoods and families even poorer. Local, state and federal agencies each have roles in that.

Lindsey Williams, Democrat
The government should use a multi-pronged approach that uses existing regulatory tools and looks to for ways to address the cumulative impacts of pollution on low-income communities. Above all, residents should be empowered to become involved as leaders in the assessment and alleviation of the cumulative impacts of pollution on their communities.

Wayne Fontana, Democrat
I absolutely believe we need to do more to protect the environment in lower income communities. One way to do so is to provide more grant and low-interest loan opportunities for local governments and businesses in those locations in the areas of clean and alternative energy, energy efficiency, etc. Many times, the cost to move toward more green, energy-efficient and alternative means is too much for those local governments and small businesses to afford.

Robert Matzie, Democrat
This would seem to be one of many areas that we need to do better in addressing in our low-income areas. It’s important to remember that those areas were not always low income. Jobs solve many societal ills, including rebuilding low-income communities into new environmentally friendly spaces.

Dan Frankel, Democrat
We know that your zip code is more predictive of your health than your genetic code. It's unconscionable to ask low-income communities to bear the impacts of industrial pollution on their bodies. Targeted grants from state programs like PennVEST should prioritize any community that bears a disproportionate impact from environmental issues.

Jay Ting Walker, Green
We can start by making it so that polluting projects aren't sited in low-income communities. Our environmental justice guidelines need to apply to all oil and gas permits unlike our current guidelines to prevent the oil and gas industry from targeting marginalized communities. Low-income communities should also be the first to get government assistance for weatherizing and converting to renewable energy (both state and federal). Right now, many low-income communities are instead first in line to get government assistance for further fossil fuel-based developments.

Emily Skopov, Democrat
It is no secret that low-income communities are most vulnerable to environmental degradation. I will be a strong advocate for lower- and middle-class Pennsylvanians and work to steer the Legislature towards policies that empower people. I believe that economic and environmental justice are inextricably linked. Long-term economic sustainability must be paired with environmental sustainability.

Betsy Monroe, Democrat
We need to do a better job of educating our local municipalities on passing zoning and planning laws that discourage gas and oil companies from moving in. It is not by chance that lower income communities have more fracking and wastewater facilities. The industry is betting on the fact that these communities do not have the resources to fight back. More can and should be done on the state level as well. I will be a strong advocate for transparency and education.

Sharon Guidi, Democrat
Too many communities, especially communities of color, in Pennsylvania are exposed to dangerous amounts of environmental toxins like lead, mercury and a plethora of carcinogens. These toxins make the air unbreathable and water undrinkable and prevent children from being able to explore not only in the woods, but also in their backyards. Such high-risk communities should be on the top of the list for environmental restoration and improvement projects. Cleaning up pollution from communities is the first step in making a place livable and empowering its citizens to live happy and productive lives.

Michele Knoll, Democrat
If we start with where the pollution is, that should drive the efforts. It may well be that low-income areas are highly represented in this method and, therefore, will be addressed first.

Byron Timmins, Democrat
Too much of our existing water line infrastructure is beyond its useful life, which leads to unacceptably high levels of contaminants introduced into public water supplies. Multiple studies have demonstrated that unnaturally high lead intake affects children’s brain development and their abilities to learn, and yet lead contamination continues to be an issue that plagues Southwestern Pennsylvania. Such matters are likely to disproportionately affect lower-income communities who must prioritize their next grocery bill over tremendously costly plumbing repairs. Similarly, blue-collar communities are more likely to be physically situated nearby production facilities that generate airborne pollutants.

The bottom line is that Pennsylvanians, current and future, of all income levels deserve a government that will fight to ensure a clean environment.

Jon McCabe, Democrat
Government grants and subsidies to help create more sustainable housing for low-income communities.

Bob Casey, Jr., Democrat
I support efforts to support and incentivize technology to promote clean energy and energy efficiency, such as energy efficiency standards and tax support for wind and solar through the Investment Tax Credit and the Production Tax Credit.

Dale Kerns, Jr., Libertarian
I do not think that government should promote or discourage any type of energy. I would bring an end to all energy subsidies and unnecessary restraints on development of new kinds of energy. Throughout history, consumers have done a far better job picking the best, and government should not be in the business of selecting winners and losers.

Neal Gale, Green
Government at all levels must focus their planning on transitioning from carbon-based fossil fuels to 100 percent clean, renewable fuels as the basis for our economy. I would transition away from nuclear power as well as fossil fuels, because even though nuclear power plants do not release greenhouse gasses, they do produce large quantities of radioactive waste, including plutonium, which is detrimental in two significant ways: it is essential for the production of nuclear weapons, which present an existential threat to our survival; and we will not be able to store this highly toxic radioactive waste with any assurance of long-term stability and safety.

Coal produces the greatest amount of carbon among all the carbon-based fuels, and so the continued use of coal plants will do more to speed the deleterious effects of adding more and more heat to our planet.

Paul Glover, Green
Reduced fuel demand through efficiency tops my agenda. Energy efficiency is our state’s key to healthy people, healthy economy, healthy future. The best fuel, ultimately, is no fuel.

Decades from now, no housing will be affordable, nor any business sustainable, unless it uses passive solar. Such buildings have proven to reduce fuel needs to near zero, even in cold climates. Thus solar construction, both passive and active, should be fast-tracked and rewarded. I would expand [the state’s alternative energy credit program] and push for a range of green building incentives. The Uniform Construction Code should be updated biannually to embrace the most aggressively energy efficient methods and technologies. As Governor, I’d support requiring high-performance building standards for all school buildings that are newly constructed or undergoing major renovation.

Kenneth Krawchuk, Libertarian
There are numerous things we can do here in Pennsylvania to help foster a safer, cleaner energy environment, such as:

• End the monopoly on energy production and distribution. A free market in electricity would increase competition, broaden choices and reduce prices. Companies that don’t respect the environment would suffer a great disadvantage in the marketplace.
• Always explore the use of solar energy. There are many companies on the market that will install solar panels on your roof for free and their electricity cost is less than the government-created energy monopolies. We can help the environment and save money at the same time.
• Stand up to federal government policies that impose bureaucratic decisions on the free market. Ill-considered programs (such as supporting private companies like Solyndra that subsequently go bankrupt) should be vehemently opposed. The government cannot know which companies will flourish or which will die; no one does.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am a long-term investor in Philadelphia Electric, Solar City, Exxon and Tesla, among other energy companies.

Jocolyn Bowser-Bostick, Green
Local and state governments should do more to end the use of nuclear energy and fossil fuels and, at the same time, promote greater energy efficiency, the use of less energy and the greater use of clean, renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, geothermal and small-scale hydro. I support the passage of , and legislation which authorizes the Public Utilities Commission to require utilities to participate in Community Solar.

Kathleen Smith, Libertarian
The government has not shown itself to be very adept at picking winners and losers in commercial endeavors, including clean energy. Every time that they subsidize one company or one technology, they impede the progress of non-subsidized possibilities. There are numerous examples ( being the most famous) of government subsidies being given out by agencies who have little or no awareness of developing technologies or worldwide market forces.

Lindsey Williams, Democrat
Government should be doing more to promote more renewable energy sources in order to reverse whatever effects of climate change are possible by incentivizing green energy projects. We need to be innovators in developing new technologies that offer good paying union union jobs for workers, in addition to protecting our environment.

Wayne Fontana, Democrat
I am a co-sponsor of that would provide for Pennsylvania’s transition to 100 percent renewable energy by 2050. The intent of this legislation is to decrease greenhouse gases, which, in turn, will reduce the levels of air, water and land pollution.

This bill is imperative to creating energy independence and security while also providing for private and public investment in clean energy and energy-efficient projects. The transition to 100 percent clean, renewable energy would further provide for the creation of future jobs by utilizing a newly skilled workforce, giving academic institutions the opportunity to advance new fields of technology as they educate a technology-based workforce.

I also support , which would increase the percentage of electricity sold in the Commonwealth that must be generated from Tier I sources [Tier I sources are a host of traditional renewable energy sources such as , etc.]. By 2023, it would require that 15 percent of electricity sold be Tier I. It would also increase the “solar carve-out” from the current 0.5 percent of electricity sold by 2020 to 1.5 percent by 2022 and require that the solar energy be generated in Pennsylvania.

It is important that we keep pace with neighboring states in developing, generating and consuming renewable electricity in order to remain competitive in the emerging “green economy.”

Robert Matzie, Democrat
All of the above. We are too dependent on fossil fuels at the moment, but our energy needs keep increasing. Coal cannot be removed from the energy mix at this time without severe consequences to supply. So I support efforts to make it as clean as possible.

Any discussion of lower/zero emissions must include nuclear or, in my opinion, it’s not a serious discussion. I think that giving nuclear consideration for the same types of breaks given to ‘clean’ energy is worth a closer look.

Sara Innamorato, Democrat
I believe that the Commonwealth should be doing more to promote zero-emission sources of power, including nuclear, while laying the legislative foundation to move our state toward a 100 percent renewable energy plan.

At the present, there are bills in the Pennsylvania House and Senate that call for the Commonwealth to be powered by 100 percent renewable energy by 2050. I fully support enacting legislation at the state level. Allegheny County has the most green jobs of any county in the state, and we’ve seen the industry outpace other energy sector jobs by leaps and bounds. It is our responsibility to lead our Commonwealth into a sustainable economic future, not promote giveaways to industries of a bygone era.

Dan Frankel, Democrat
Pennsylvania, like many states, requires certain amounts of energy to come from renewable sources. I've consistently supported bipartisan legislation requiring alternative energy and joined efforts to ensure that our Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission required solar energy credits to come from Pennsylvania sources. My efforts on behalf of our environment have earned me a 100 percent rating on the Pennsylvania Environmental Scorecard.

Jay Ting Walker, Green
Government should be doing more to promote clean energy. Government should not be doing more to assist nuclear energy or coal-fired power plants. I propose that our state change regulations to permit community solar to make it easier for large-scale solar projects to occur. Our government also needs to be investing directly in wind and solar. Strong investment in these projects will provide a big payout in the long term.

Betsy Monroe, Democrat
Since day one of my campaign, I have stated that Pennsylvania needs to be investing in renewable energy sources. We have the perfect opportunity right now. If we were to impose a severance tax on natural gas extraction, like every other major gas-producing state, we would have more than enough money to better fund the EPA to enforce regulations and invest in the development of a renewable energy economy.

Sharon Guidi, Democrat
If we want to aggressively act on climate change, we must encourage and allow every type of renewable energy. Rate payers should be encouraged to invest in forms of renewable energy that will benefit themselves, their communities and the entire state. Allowing communities to pool their resources together to fund solar projects in their community provides the opportunity for communities of all incomes to benefit from solar energy, both economically and from cleaner air and water. Coal companies should not be supported by public funds, when they continue to subject their workers to harmful and unhealthy working conditions and pollute the air we breathe and water we drink. Focusing our efforts on attainable goals, such as 80 percent renewables by 2050, will motivate utilities and individuals to move in the right direction while also setting adequate expectations.

Michele Knoll, Democrat
In light of the climate crisis, it may be wise to consider nuclear energy because it does not pollute the air. I am aware that there are waste issues associated with nuclear power plants, but these issues are manageable with current technology if the political will can be brought to bear. However, that is not the only consideration. Investment in solar and wind must also be developed.

Byron Timmins, Democrat
There is no easy answer to immediately weaning our Commonwealth or country off fossil fuels, but there is no reason not to advance the effort.

Pennsylvania, particularly our region, is in a unique position having access to institutions at the forefront of green energy development. We have vast swaths of open land that would support both solar and wind platforms, and we are famous for our riverways.

Most importantly, we have a built-in workforce continually pursuing quality, blue-collar jobs. As such, we have an opportunity to develop vocational education facilities specifically geared toward training skilled technicians to serve the unique demands of these continually-developing systems. This is not just an opportunity to improve the environment, it is an opportunity to continue improving our economy.

Jon McCabe, Democrat
We can put people to work while taking action on climate change and set a goal for reducing carbon pollution.

We should also give individuals the opportunity to do their part to achieve the state’s carbon reduction goal by expanding access to residential solar energy, which is broadly popular with the public—including with some conservative activists who see rooftop solar as fundamentally being about supporting consumer choice. Expanding solar energy is also a strong source of job creation. State tax credits, rebates and exemptions can help encourage broader adoption of rooftop solar, as can net metering policies, which credits homeowners for solar power that they sell back to the electric grid.

Bob Casey, Jr., Democrat
I believe that there’s no reason that we can’t both create jobs and protect the environment.

I am a strong advocate for our bedrock federal environmental laws and authorities, including the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act, among others, and have voted to protect those core authorities from the Trump Administration. I introduced the , which would require drillers to disclose the chemicals they use during the fracking process and allow rigorous oversight of fracking.

Dale Kerns, Jr., Libertarian
I would bring an end to the federal bureaucracy that the EPA currently uses to allow bigger companies advantages in polluting and jumping ahead of small businesses. I would return to a system of accountability that would put companies in the courts created by the Constitution rather than those under the purview of the EPA. Instead of receiving special treatment, all would have to abide by property law concepts, which give corporations much less leeway.

Neal Gale, Green
I believe the message that we can only have a healthy environment and reign the climate crisis back a bit, at the expense of a healthy economy, is fundamentally wrong, a concept promoted and normalized by those who stand to gain economically from the continuation of an extracted carbon-based fossil fuel economy.

Combustion of these fuels, in particular coal at the advent of the industrial revolution, oil at the beginning of the 20th century and natural gas about halfway into that century, have all been the cause of the dramatic rise in carbon dioxide in our atmosphere (about 40 percent greater since 1700, about half of that since 1950). We can’t continue down that path without risking climate catastrophe.