This is the thirty-third article in a continuing series by the NRDC Action Fund on the environmental stances of candidates in key races around the country.
The 19th Congressional District includes much of the historic lower Hudson Valley, sprawling over five counties (Orange, Dutchess, Rockland, Putnam, and Westchester). Traditionally Republican, the district’s voting has become more Democratic recently. Although party outcomes have changed, the district continues to be politically moderate. In 2004, the district voted to reelect President Bush, but voted for President Obama in 2008. The former singer, Democrat John Hall, is in his second term representing the district in the U.S. House. Republican Nan Hayworth is challenging Hall in next week’s election.
Rep. Hall has been a consistent vote for the environment in Congress, receiving a 98% career rating from the League of Conservation Voters (LCV). Last year, Hall voted for the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), the first comprehensive clean energy and climate bill to ever pass a chamber of Congress. Following the vote, Hall said in a statement:
“Doing nothing on energy policy is not an option… Doing nothing, like we did during the Bush-Cheney Administration, caused our national security to weaken, dependence on Middle East oil to grow, average American household energy costs to increase by $1,100 and the slowest job growth of any administration in 75 years…
The American Clean Energy and Security Act is going to be the first step to creating this American-made clean energy technology. This landmark legislation will eliminate the need to buy millions of barrels of oil from foreign dictators and give us, our children, and our grandkids a chance at living in a healthy and safe environment. This bill will help stop the flow of U.S. gas dollars to the Middle East, and invest in a diverse, comprehensive American energy portfolio.”
Because of his strong position on clean energy and environmental policy, the New York State LCV has endorsed his reelection bid.
In sharp contrast, Hayworth makes her opposition to ACES abundantly clear on her campaign website, inaccurately saying that it “will put an enormous burden on American consumers, and will increase the cost of American goods. The United States will lose businesses and jobs to countries that refuse to abide by our cap-and-trade restrictions.” She couldn't be more incorrect. According to the nonpartisan experts at the Congressional Budget Office, ACES will cost “about $175 per household” annually; a number which “does not include the economic benefits and other benefits of the reduction of [greenhouse gas] emissions.” Furthermore, CBO found that low-income households would see a “net benefit of about $40” per year. As for her claims about jobs, according to collaborative research by Yale University, the University of Illinois and University of California, ACES could create 1.9 million jobs nationally, and more than 126,000 in New York alone.
That’s not all she’s wrong about. Hayworth also believes that “[r]ecent controversies,” (likely referring to the bunk Climategate non-scandal), should lead us to “regard any claims [about global warming] with skepticism.” Tell that to the National Academy of Sciences, our foremost scientific authority, which recently concluded, “Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.”
The district is being given a clear choice on environmental issues.
The NRDC Action Fund believes that it is important for the public in general, and the voters of specific Congressional districts, be aware of this information as they weigh their choices for November.