Jay Inslee on Environment Democratic WA Governor; Former Rep/ (WA-1); withdrew from Presidential primary Aug. 2019

Continue to fight against climate change & salmon extinction

As the future of salmon goes so goes the future of our state

Middle ground solutions aren't going to save our air & water

V.P. Joe BIDEN: There is no middle ground about my plan.

INSLEE: These deadlines are set by science. Mr. Vice President, your argument is not with me, it's with science. Unfortunately, your plan is just too late. The science tells us we have to get off coal in 10 years. Your plan does not do that. We have to have off of fossil fuels in our electrical grid in 15. Your plan simply does not do that. I believe that survival is realistic, and that's the kind of plan we need. And that's the kind I have.

Develop new nuclear technologies

TWO CANDIDATES HAVE SIMILAR VIEWS: Joseph Biden, Jr.; Kamala Harris.

Utilities and scientists are developing nuclear power reactors that are much smaller than the massive facilities that have been used in past decades. The new reactors, called Small Modular Reactors that the Energy Department's national labs are helping to develop, would produce perhaps 50 to 100 megawatts.

Signs first human composting bill into law

Explore next-generation advanced nuclear technologies

Inslee: We must move to a carbon-free power sector, so I would not take any zero-emission sources of power generation off the table. But my focus would be first and foremost on investing in the expansion of renewables, efficiency, smart grid and energy storage technologies. We should continue to explore next-generation advanced nuclear technologies. But safety is of paramount importance, as is a stable long-term plan for dealing with waste. And new nuclear plants have also proven to be very costly, so we must not allow utilities and corporate project-developers to stick ratepayers with any expensive cost overruns associated with such projects.

Imperative to save the Southern Resident orcas

Rated 100% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes.

The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) is the political voice of the national environmental movement and the only organization devoted full-time to shaping a pro-environment Congress and White House. We run tough and effective campaigns to defeat anti-environment candidates, and support those leaders who stand up for a clean, healthy future for America. Through our National Environmental Scorecard and Presidential Report Card we hold Congress and the Administration accountable for their actions on the environment. Through regional offices, we build coalitions, promote grassroots power, and train the next generation of environmental leaders. The 2003 National Environmental Scorecard provides objective, factual information about the environmental voting records of all Members of the first session of the 108th Congress. This Scorecard represents the consensus of experts from 20 respected environmental and conservation organizations who selected the key votes on which Members of Congress should be graded. LCV scores votes on the most important issues of the year, including environmental health and safety protections, resource conservation, and spending for environmental programs. Scores are calculated by dividing the number of pro-environment votes by the total number of votes scored. The votes included in this Scorecard presented Members of Congress with a real choice on protecting the environment and help distinguish which legislators are working for environmental protection. Except in rare circumstances, the Scorecard excludes consensus action on the environment and issues on which no recorded votes occurred.

Promote conservation of rare felids & canids.

To assist in the conservation of rare felids and rare canids by supporting and providing financial resources for the conservation programs of nations within the range of rare felid and rare canid populations and projects of persons with demonstrated expertise in the conservation of rare felid and rare canid populations. Congress finds the following:

• Many wild populations of felids and canids, once considered common, are in decline, and many have declined to the point that their long-term survival in the wild is in serious jeopardy.
• Of the 37 wild felid species worldwide, all are currently recognized as species in need of protection. Of the 35 wild canid species worldwide, nearly 50% are recognized as in need of such protection.
• In addition to their intrinsic value, felids and canids are important aesthetic, economic, and ecological global resources that need to be conserved.
• Large felids and canids are considered both keystone and indicator species. Healthy populations of these species act as an important indicator of the integrity of entire ecosystems.
• Rare felids and rare canids face an array of threats, including loss of habitat and natural prey, intentional and unintentional takings by humans, disease transmission, and a vast number of other threats. These threats need to be addressed in a coordinated fashion.
• The purposes of this Act are to provide financial resources and to foster international cooperation (1) to restore and perpetuate healthy populations of rare felids and rare canids in the wild; and (2) to assist in the conservation of rare felid and rare canid populations worldwide.
• Related bills: H.R.1913, S.1033

Make tax deduction permanent for conservation easements.

Amends the Internal Revenue Code to make permanent the tax deduction for charitable contributions by individuals and corporations of real property interests for conservation purposes. Known in the Senate as the Rural Heritage Conservation Extension Act of 2009.

Regulate all dog breeders down to kennels of 50 dogs.

Congressional Summary:Amends the Animal Welfare Act to define a `high volume retail breeder` as a person who, in commerce, for compensation or profit: has an ownership interest in or custody of one or more breeding female dogs; and sells more than 50 of the offspring of such dogs for use as pets in any one-year period. Considers such a breeder of dogs to be a dealer.

Promulgates requirements for the exercise of dogs at facilities owned or operated by high volume retail breeders, including requiring daily access to exercise that allows the dogs to move sufficiently in a way that is not forced, repetitive, or restrictive; and is in an area that is spacious, cleaned at least once a day, free of infestation by pests or vermin, and designed to prevent the dogs from escaping.

Opponent`s Comments (GSDCA, the German Shepherd Dog Club of America):In the past, legislation has excluded home/hobby breeders. This bill would, for the first time, require home/hobby breeders to follow the strict USDA requirements, such as engineering standards designed for large commercial kennels and not homes. Such regulations would exceedingly difficult to meet in a home/residential breeding environment. If passed, PUPS would disastrously reduce purposely-bred pups for the public.

There is nothing in this bill that changes the status of already known substandard kennel violators. There is no increase in funding for additional inspectors, nor is increased inspection evaluation education included.

Dogs purposely bred for showing, trialing or other events often are not bred for several years due to many different reasons. Some of these dogs may never be bred, yet are included in the count.

Working kennels maintain a large dog population while they are evaluating dogs; if the dogs do not work out for the purpose for which they were intended, they are often sold as pets. This could bring those working/training kennels under USDA regulations.

Prohibit invasive research on great apes.

The Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act prohibits:

1. conducting invasive research on great apes
2. possessing, maintaining, or housing a great ape for the purpose of conducting invasive research
3. using federal funds to conduct such research on a great ape or to support an entity conducting invasive research either within or outside of the US
4. knowingly breeding a great ape for the purpose of conducting or facilitating such research
5. transporting or selling a great ape in interstate or foreign commerce for conducting or facilitating such research.

• Defines `great ape` as any chimpanzee, bonobo, gorilla, orangutan, or gibbon.
• Defines `invasive research` as research that may cause death, injury, pain, distress, fear, or trauma to great apes, including drug testing or exposure to a substance or isolation, or social deprivation.
• Requires the permanent retirement of all great apes that are owned by the federal government and that are being maintained in any facility for the purpose of breeding for, holding for, or conducting invasive research.
• Sets forth civil penalties for violations of this Act.
• Establishes in the Treasury the Great Ape Sanctuary System Fund to be administered for construction, renovation, and operation of the sanctuary system for surplus chimpanzees.

Rated 100% by HSLF, indicating a pro-animal welfare voting record.

112th Mid-Term Humane Scorecard: The Humane Society Legislative Fund has posted the final version of the 2011 Humane Scorecard, where you can track the performance of your federal lawmakers on key animal protection issues during last year. We rated legislators based on their voting behavior on measures such as agribusiness subsidies, lethal predator control, and the Endangered Species Act; their cosponsorship of priority bills on puppy mills, horse slaughter, animal fighting, and chimps in research; their support for funding the enforcement of animal welfare laws; and their leadership on animal protection. All of the priority bills whose cosponsorships we`re counting enjoy strong bipartisan support; in the House, each of the four now has more than 150 cosponsors.

The Humane Scorecard is not a perfect measuring tool, but creating some reasonable yardstick and allowing citizens to hold lawmakers accountable is central to our work. When the Humane Scorecard comes out each year, it helps clarify how the animal protection movement is doing geographically, by party affiliation, and in other categories. It helps us chart our course for animals by seeing where we have been effective, and where we need to improve.

Strengthen prohibitions against animal fighting.

Sen. CANTWELL. I reintroduce today the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007. This legislation has won the unanimous approval of the Senate several times, but unfortunately has not yet reached the finish line.

There is no doubt, animal fighting is terribly cruel. Dogs and roosters are drugged to make them hyper-aggressive and forced to keep fighting even after suffering severe injuries such as punctured eyes and pierced lungs. It`s all done for `entertainment` and illegal gambling. Some dogfighters steal pets to use as bait for training their dogs, while others allow trained fighting dogs to roam neighborhoods and endanger the public.

The Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act will strengthen current law by making the interstate transport of animals for the purpose of fighting a felony and increase the punishment to three years of jail time. This is necessary because the current misdemeanor penalty has proven ineffective--considered a `cost of doing business` by those in the animal fighting industry which continues unabated nationwide.

These enterprises depend on interstate commerce, as evidenced by the animal fighting magazines that advertise and promote them. Our bill also makes it a felony to move cockfighting implements in interstate or foreign commerce. These are razor-sharp knives known as `slashers` and ice pick-like gaffs designed exclusively for cockfights and attached to the birds` legs for fighting.

This is long overdue legislation. It`s time to get this felony animal fighting language enacted. It`s time for Congress to strengthen the federal law so that it can provide as a meaningful deterrent against animal fighting. Our legislation does not expand the federal government`s reach into a new area, but simply aims to make current law more effective. It is explicitly limited to interstate and foreign commerce, so it protects states` rights in the two states where cockfighting is still allowed.

Regulating 15 more contaminants under Clean Water Act.

Amends the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to publish a proposed list of at least 15 contaminants that may occur in public water systems and that are not currently subject to EPA regulation. Provides for proposed lists of at least 12 additional contaminants every four years. (Current law requires EPA to regulate 25 contaminants every three years.) Bases the determination to regulate a contaminant on findings that:

1. the contaminant is known to occur in public water systems;
2. the contaminant occurs in concentrations which may have adverse health effects; and
3. regulation of the contaminant presents an opportunity to reduce health risks.

Click here for definitions & background information on Environment. Click here for a summary of all issue stances of Jay Inslee. Click here for a Wikipedia profile of Jay Inslee. Click here for a Ballotpedia profile of Jay Inslee. Click here for VoteMatch responses by Jay Inslee. Click here for issue positions of other WA politicians. Click here for WA primary archives. Click here for WA secondary archives.
Other governors on Environment:			Jay Inslee on other issues:
[Title7]	Gubernatorial Debates 2023: KY: Incumbent Andy Beshear(D) vs.State A.G. Daniel Cameron(R) vs.Ambassador Kelly Craft(R) vs.State Auditor Mike Harmon(R) LA: Incumbent John Bel Edwards(D,term-limited) vs.Jeff Landry(R) vs.Shawn Wilson(D) vs.John Schroder(R) vs.Sharon Hewitt(R) MS: Incumbent Tate Reeves(R) vs.Bill Waller(R,withdrew) vs.Brandon Presley(D) Gubernatorial Debates 2024: DE: Gov. John Carney (D, term-limited); Lt. Gov. Bethany Hall-Long (D) vs. Matt Meyer (D) IN: Gov. Eric Holcomb (R, term-limited); Sen. Mike Braun (R) vs. Suzanne Crouch (R) vs. Jennifer McCormick (D) MO: Gov. Mike Parson (R, term-limited): Jay Ashcroft (R) vs. Bill Eigel (R) vs. Mike Kehoe (R) vs. Crystal Quade (D) MT: Gov. Greg Gianforte (R) vs. Tanner Smith (R) vs. Ryan Busse (D)	Gubernatorial Debates 2024 (continued): NC: Gov. Roy Cooper (D, term-limited); Dale Folwell (R) vs. Michael Morgan (D) vs. Mark Robinson (R) vs. Josh Stein (D) vs. Andy Wells (R) ND: Gov. Doug Burgum (R) vs. State Rep. Rick Becker (R) NH: Gov. Chris Sununu (R, retiring) vs. Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R) vs. Joyce Craig (D) vs. Chuck Morse (R) vs. Cinde Warmington (D) UT: Gov. Spencer Cox (R) vs. State Rep. Phil Lyman (R) VT: Gov. Phil Scott (R) unopposed WA: Gov. Jay Inslee (D, retiring); Hilary Franz (D, withdrew) vs. State Sen. Mark Mullet (D) vs. County Chair Semi Bird (R) vs. WA Attorney General Bob Ferguson (D) WV: Gov. Jim Justice (R, term-limited); vs. WV State Auditor JB McCuskey (R, withdrew) vs. WV Secretary of State Mac Warner (R) vs. State Del. Moore Capito (R) vs. WV Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R) vs. Huntington Mayor Steve Williams (D)	Abortion Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families/Children Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Infrastructure/Technology Jobs Local Issues Principles/Values Social Security Tax Reform War/Iraq/Mideast Welfare/Poverty [Title9]