Here’s a questionnaire from the Michigan League of Conservation voters. May as well share my responses with everyone.
- This isn’t really a one answer question. For instance, reducing greenhouse gas emissions is not necessary. Since Al Gore came out with his global warming scare in 2006, the name has been changed from global warming to climate change. Global warming wasn’t and isn’t occurring, climate change is always occurring. According to the Vostok ice core samples, Real Climate and other sources, CO2 increases lag behind temperature increases. Most current climate change models are based on the opposite premise, and are therefore flawed. The earth is currently in a cooling phase. This issue is being driven by the desire to create global carbon taxes, make lots of money for the well-connected, with no realistic benefit. I write more about this subject here.
- Reducing energy demand and fossil fuel consumption: I’m in favor of reducing energy demand through more efficient lighting, efficient insulating, etc. Fossil fuel consumption is not a problem. The US is still a sovereign country (sort of), which is part of the bigger world. We have clean coal fired electric plants in the US. Large parts of the world (China, Mexico, etc.) don’t. So instead of creating energy from clean plants in the US, we are being shifted toward green energy, which has its own problems, and buying energy from dirty coal fired plants in Mexico to supplement. It’s one earth, so this is a lose-lose proposition in many regards. I am sure there are members of your audience that are so dedicated that they would be in favor of 0% carbon dioxide. At that point, all vegetation on earth would die, and so would we. The earth took care of itself before we got here, and it will continue to function regardless of man’s CO2 emissions. Oceans consume about half the CO2 mankind produces, I’m sure vegetation consumes most of the rest. The density of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.000747 Kg per cubic meter of air.
- Maintaining an adequate and safe water supply: I have taken a tour of the West Olive water plant and am convinced we are providing safe water, other than the last step in the process, which is the addition of fluoride/hydrofluorosilicic acid. There are over 50 posts on my website explaining in detail why I am campaigning to take the poison, hydrofluorosilicic acid, out. According to the provided research, this should affect the health of all Grand Rapids citizens positively to some degree. I am the only candidate who seems to understand this issue.
- Does improving the health and quality of the Grand River mean Restore the Rapids? According to the WOOD TV, this may cost billions of dollars. When I think of all the citizens of Grand Rapids who would never benefit from this project for any number of reasons, but still be on the hook for financially supporting it, I am initially opposed.
- Recycling and reducing land filling: approve. I would like to see maximum use made of the Kent County incinerator. See Sanitation Collection for a discussion on why it may be time to get the city government out of the sanitation collection services.
- Encouraging sound land use, and ensuring access to parks and open spaces: approve.
- 100%? No, see above.
- Whatever’s already in the plan that makes sense to continue and doesn’t conflict with the above.
- No, I will not. I believe these are driven by Agenda 21 initiatives, which I oppose. I oppose “road diets“. If people want to follow sustainability protocols in the way they travel, they can make that choice on their own. I will not take part in supporting policies that attempt to force others to do what they don’t want to do.
- No, I would not. I question why the city is getting into the power generation business when it’s just duplicating an existing business that exists in the private sector. How many additional employees were added to design, install, and maintain the systems required to provide this “green” energy? Why, like the city refuse department which is currently losing money, are we going down the same path with power generation? Will we next, instead of buying solar panels from private industry, set up a new city department to fabricate our own panels organically? Where does all this end? If being green is of such utmost importance, did the mayor and city commission ever consider just buying green energy from the private industry that already provides it, Consumers Energy, and be done with it?
- No, it’s not necessary. CO2 isn’t a problem. The bragging rights are worth $0.00 to the citizens. There will be no mass migration to the city of Grand Rapids if we’re 100% green energy. As I said in a different post, when a politician tells you ‘the science is settled’, he’s either ignorant or lying. Currently, we have the President, the Pope, and the UN telling us the science is settled. They are all in favor of a one world carbon tax. To reduce perhaps 1% of greenhouse gas? All you have to know is on this subject is: water vapor (a greenhouse gas) is 98% of the total greenhouse gases, CO2 is less than 2%. CO2 isn’t a problem, or did I already say that?
- If Consumers Energy wants to expand the use of renewable energy, there is no reason to be opposed. They are a private company and should run it as they see fit. I’ve explained my views on city power generation. As far as energy efficiency, I am for efficiency in most things, city government included. I am an engineer, and spent a career trying to do things more efficiently, so I obviously would not oppose energy efficiency. In fact, I don’t even recognize the efficiency of this question.
- We are always having budget issues in this city, so I would look at the expense and necessity of each department to determine where cuts could be made to increase efficiency. I don’t believe we have to lobby the state government in this area, and as a cost cutting measure would recommend discontinuing an association with the lobbying firm.
- Answers in the sustainability paragraph indicate where I stand. Although I would probably not be in harmony with the majority of attendees, I would attend to keep abreast of other issues that may be of concern to the city of Grand Rapids. I would not champion policies encouraging the deployment of renewable energy other than possibly buying it.
- Since I believe if solar energy makes any sense, it’s at the private, localized level, I would most likely be in favor of PACE districts.
- Does improving the health and quality of the Grand River mean Restore the Rapids? According to the WOOD TV, this project may cost billions of dollars. When I think of all the citizens of Grand Rapids who would never benefit at all from this project for any number of reasons, but still be on the hook for financially supporting it, I am opposed.
- According to the WOOD TV, this project may cost billions of dollars. When I think of all the citizens of Grand Rapids who would never benefit at all from this project for any number of reasons, but still be on the hook for financially supporting it, I am opposed.
- I would work with the applicable departments to see what makes sense to do where the city gets the most bang for its buck.
- I don’t have enough current knowledge to answer this question. I cannot answer every question on everything I will do in the next four years. No one here does, although some may try to convince you otherwise.
- Emphatically yes.
- I lean towards yes but would act on a case-by-case basis.
Final comment: according to my answers, I’m sure you will peg me as an anti-environmentalist, which is far from the truth. I am concerned with real problems such as fluoride in the water supply, trash in the oceans, and the ongoing Fukishima disaster for a few examples. There is an unknown quantity of radioactive water being released into the Pacific ocean per day. Should I be worried about a substance in the ocean which is very detrimental to life, and has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, or about CO2 which living beings exhale, and which oceans and plants require to survive? Ask the survivors of the USS Kennedy what they would rather have been exposed to, radiation or normal levels of CO2?
I hope by reading my responses I can move your organization toward looking beyond what the mainstream media constantly harps on and add additional causes to your concerns.