Jim Bryan answers questions from CandidAnswers.org

The five questions from CandidAnswers.org and Jim's answers:

1. Global Warming
2. Renewable Energy
3. Nuclear Power
4. Transportation
5. Fuel Efficiency

1. Global Warming Q. Scientists warn that the United States must begin to cut global warming pollution, reducing it at least 20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050, in order to avoid the most severe impacts of global warming. Do you support or oppose a mandatory limit on global warming pollution to achieve these pollution-reduction targets? Please explain your position.

A. In this and many answers below I quote my website, www.bryanforcongress.org, which has been my visible position since May and my positions in fact from the beginning of my campaign in early 2008. I also quote from my responses to questions similar to CA's from the Scientists and Engineers of America. You can read my responses to SEA's seven questions on my web site or, for a wealth of other information, at www.sharp.sefora.org.

Now, on global warming, from my response to SEA: "Encouragement of carbon-free energy is vital. Either a carbon tax ("environmental certainty," given significant limits of knowledge on the atmosphere) or a cap-and-trade system ("economic certainty") is vital. I have leant to a carbon tax, which is politically more difficult. Among other reasons, it is sure to reach the motor vehicle. On Oct. 7, the House Energy and Commerce Committee released a draft of climate change legislation two years in the making. The draft incorporates cap-and-trade. Of one thing I am certain - we do not have time to dither."

CA's question was on global warming pollution, not just carbon emissions. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas. I replied to SEA: "We also know that beef cattle account for huge releases of methane. Diet affects both health and environment."

I am not so far ahead of anyone that I have in mind legislation to cut beef consumption. But we cannot ignore it.

I also wrote the SEA on the topic of sustainability: "For overall sustainability, materials conservation is vital. Reuse of industrial materials has a long history, in-plant conservation and "pollution prevention" since the 80s on any scale. Success has been demonstrated, but it's just a beginning. It has been shown that buildings can be deconstructed and the materials reused, but how often is it done? Did I mention that these activities can add both jobs and marketable products to America? Motor vehicles can be designed to be taken apart. The possibilities go on and on.

"The government can use tax policy, judicious regulation, research support, in a few selected cases active government projects, and plain old political leadership to make these things happen."

In my web site I wrote: "Today, we face one of mankind's greatest challenges in the need to reduce carbon emissions drastically and quickly. It is clear that Earth's glaciers, ice caps and polar sea ice are rapidly melting. I believe the scientists who attribute this to greenhouse gases are correct and that the time for action is now. I will therefore vote for legislation to reduce emissions and work to make existing legislation effective.

"Fossil fuels emit carbon and are linked to climate change. The destructiveness of coal mining is well recognized, and coal emits both toxic chemicals and radioactivity. The need for control of toxic chemicals is well recognized."

2. Renewable Energy Q. Renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power create new economic opportunities and reduce pollution. Do you support or oppose a federal policy designed to produce at least 20 percent of America's electricity supply from these clean sources of energy by 2020? Please explain your position.

A. Yes, I would welcome and support a policy at least this strong. My public statements would reinforce it, even though I made no specific legislative proposals. From my website:

"Even if we make a dedicated effort to conserve, America will not be able to declare energy independence until we make an effort comparable to JFK’s space program. We need research and development in vehicle propulsion, electric power generation, advanced energy economy, and more. Will it be too expensive? Every day we use — and business and industry rely upon — technological spinoffs from the space program. The effort should also create new, good-paying jobs.

"Solar, wind and tidal energy sources are now touted on the TV screen almost daily and others may be discovered. Unfortunately, each known source has both advantages and disadvantages. Drive through north Texas and you will see a landscape of twirling windmills along 100 miles of ridge, and solar cell manufacture requires the use of toxic chemicals. The costs are also high — at least for now. To put that in perspective, back in the 1950s, a blue-ribbon panel predicted the US would need twelve regional computer centers because computers were so expensive and complex. "None of this will happen by itself. Nor will it happen in America (rather than in China or other technologically emergent nations) unless we make strong advances in our educational system, from pre-K to post-PhD."

3. Nuclear Power Q. Given that nuclear power is a mature energy technology that already provides about 20% of our nation’s electricity, some experts question whether tax dollars should be used to support the construction of new nuclear power plants. Do you support or oppose additional government subsidies to build new nuclear power plants? Please explain your position.

A. CA's question addresses how (not whether). I have said on my website: "I am not willing to endorse the atomic alternative without the guarantee of adequate controls and provisions for waste disposal." I am in favor of atomic energy as a component on carbon-free energy.

What is the role of nuclear power? How much will be nuclear, how much wind, how much solar, and how much something else? What will the demand look like given efficiency and conservation? The costs of technologies typically drop as they are developed, but how much? Since the US has no energy plan at all, neither I nor anyone else can answer those questions. I am confident that nuclear will play a part.

The question of government subsidies for nuclear plants is basically economic and political. Nuclear plants require enormous capital expenditures. The permitting is complex and also expensive. Safe and secure collection and transport for the spent material is important. In this situation, Government support would be helpful and perhaps vital to getting nuclear power on line.

I look on government support as an investment, a low-interest loan to be repaid. I, and many others, are looking at incentive grants, tax relief, and other incentives for other technologies. As CA's question points out, nuclear power is a mature technology. Reasons for similar measures for nuclear power may come to light. I do not see them now, but I do not rule them out.

At present, French companies are assessing nuclear plants in the US. I know this because one of my advisors is in the energy business. A majority of France's power has come from atomic energy for over two decades. They have the expertise and the experience. If French companies build here, it will be the French government that subsidizes plant development, and in the long run, American dollars will go to France.

4. Transportation Q. For every 5 dollars the federal government spends on transportation, only 1 dollar goes to public transportation. With record-high gas prices, Americans are looking for more transportation choices. Would you support changes in federal funding to ensure a more even split between public and private transportation investment?

A. You bet I would! Here is what I told SEA: "Among measures not mentioned [in the SEA questionnaire], I would work: To end favored treatment of coal and oil extraction. To implement efficient public transportation, city and interstate, including added reliance on rail and waterborne freight.

City transport: Most local elected officials cannot see beyond whether the fares cover the cost of the system. Mostly they do not. Most local politicians, for valid reasons, cannot "think globally; act locally." Mostly only New Yorkers want to live in the Big Apple, but one of the benefits is that you don't need a car. A lot of people, however, might want to live in one of the world's most beautiful cities, Prague (if they didn't have to learn Czech). You can get from one side of the city to the other in minutes.

Passenger rail: You can get from Washington to New York in three hours even on Amtrak's primitive rails. Longer trips tend now to be more recreation than business, but I want to see some information on times and efficiency.

Freight rail: Freight is many times more fuel-efficient than truck. I want to see it used more. We are jamming our interstates with 18-wheelers. There was even a proposal (I hope it's dead.) to parallel I-81 through Virginia's Shenandoah Valley with a truck-only interstate.

Waterborne transport: This is the most efficient of all for bulk transport (outside of pipeline). Here along the Gulf Coast we have the Intracoastal Waterway, which connects to the heart of America via the Mississippi.

5. Fuel Efficiency Q. Some people say that the best way to save consumers money and reduce our dependence on oil is to make cars and trucks go farther on a gallon of gas. Do you support or oppose an increase in fuel efficiency standards from the current level of 25 miles per gallon to at least 50 miles per gallon by 2030? Please explain your position.

A. Yes, I would support a mileage standard of 50 or higher. There is no reason we cannot do that by 2030. Speaking in the short term, I spoke to fuel conservation on my web site, "The quickest way to relieve the fuel stress is conservation. A vehicle that gets 35 mpg saves four gallons per 100 miles over a vehicle that gets 15 mpg. Going from 35 mpg, which is easily attainable now, to 100 mpg, which is advanced technology, saves only two gallons per 100 miles. Yes, we need the engineering that will take us to 100 mpg and beyond — but we can get an immediate bang for the buck using technology that we have right now. The same principle is true with home insulation — the biggest impact comes from the first layer of insulation. I will do all I can to promote conservation." Here are the numbers I use: 15 mpg = 6.7 gal/100mi. 25 mpg = 4.0. 35mpg = 2.9. 50 = 2.0. 100 = 1.0. The progression is clear.