scorecardresearch Skip to main content

Scott Lively’s answers to questions on environmental issues

The Globe sent 17 questions to each of the state’s gubernatorial candidates on environmental issues. Here are the answers provided by Independent candidate Scott Lively.

1. Do you believe that human beings are causing global climate change? Yes or no and why or why not? If you have changed your mind on the subject, can you explain why?

No. In my opinion “Global Warming” doctrine is part of a scheme by transnational Marxist elites to establish a system for global taxation and redistribution of wealth. Their logical premise that the world’s weather systems would remain relatively static absent fossil fuel burning is absurd on its face. Global climate change is perpetual. The planet is an organic system in a constant state of transformation by forces far more powerful than human technology.


2. Do you support the state’s current goals of cutting carbon emissions 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050? Do you think the state should be doing more or less to cut carbon emissions? Yes or no and why or why not?

I favor the reduction of all airborne pollutants for the purpose of improving air quality, but not as part of the Global Warming scheme. I would completely disconnect air quality goals from Global Warming mechanisms.

3. Can you provide specifics as to how you would achieve the state’s goals of cutting carbon emissions in 2020 and 2050?

I believe we can improve air quality (and overall quality of life) by reversing the trend of crowding people into the cities, and instead restore a more traditional agrarian lifestyle where people live and work in their own, relatively self-sufficient local communities under local control. I would decentralize state power and return it to localities, revive environmentally-conscious light manufacturing in the towns and small cities, rebuild local farm-to-town interdependence, and reemphasize community cohesion based on intact natural families. These changes would dramatically lessen the daily “commuter culture” of millions of carbon-spewing cars congesting every big-city traffic grid.


Obviously, these are big changes that would take years to accomplish, but I believe we would see significant improvements from the outset, without giving up our state or national sovereignty to an unelected globalist regulatory regime.

4. Do you support tax credits for renewable energy? Yes or no and why or why not?

Yes, but I favor small-scale projects for home and business use, not large corporate or municipal projects (which are usually eyesores and harmful to wildlife). I would redirect public subsidies to research and development of personal use solar and wind units for integration in residential and commercial properties. These units would at worst offset individual electricity costs, and at best “spin the meter backward” to provide income to owners whose electricity generation exceeds their use and flows into the grid. This approach would incentivize conservation while making home and business owners more self-sufficient.

5. As seas rise, what would you do to protect the state’s coast?

I do not accept the premise of the question. I don’t expect the seas to rise appreciably. I think that is alarmist propaganda invented to serve the Global Warming scheme.

To the extent that seas do rise (or fall) by natural processes, we should follow the example of others, like the Dutch, whose centuries of experience with inundation of their coastlands by sea-water proves that ocean levels change on their own, not as the result of human activity.


6. Do you support the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s extension of the Pilgrim plant’s license? As governor, would you push to close Pilgrim or do you see it as a vital source of energy for the future? Yes or no and why or why not?

Yes. I support nuclear power backed by ever improving containment and safety technology.

7. Do you support Cape Wind? Yes or no and why or why not?

I support large scale wind power generation only in remote locations where their impact on wildlife is minimal. I often drove past such wind farms in the deserts of Southeastern California when I lived in that region. They were an eyesore that I would never have wanted to see in populated areas. I don’t think there are any suitable locations in Massachusetts for these facilities. (See also #4).

8. Do you support the extension of natural gas pipelines through Massachusetts? Yes or no and why or why not?

I have moved from a maybe to a yes on this. Natural gas is a proven technology and a resource in abundance in America.

9. Do you support ballot Question No. 2 to expand the state’s bottle law? Yes or no and why or why not?

No. I believe curbside recycling programs are more efficient.

10. Until recently, despite tens of millions of dollars spent and the availability of curbside recycling to nearly everyone, only about 37 percent of all municipal waste is recycled in Massachusetts. What would you do to change that?


I expect the newly developed single-stream recycling model will dramatically improve that ratio, and I would want to give that system some time to prove itself before making changes.

11. Do you support the state’s Endangered Species Act? Yes or no and why or why not?

Yes. Though I believe laws like this are often used as a pretext to thwart development. I would be diligent in monitoring the enforcement of the law and intervene to prevent abuses.

12. What would you do preserve the dwindling amount of open land in the state?

I am not certain that open land is actually dwindling. In fact, I believe the United Nations Agenda 21 project which has been active for many years in Massachusetts has been steadily pushing people off the land and into the cities. I think this is one of the reasons we have all but lost our culture of family farms. I would work to reverse that trend and restore the model of rural family farms in symbiosis with light-manufacturing-based town centers.

I generally oppose large-scale corporate development outside of urban corridors, but I strongly favor holistic, environmentally-conscious light human settlement as against the Agenda 21 goal of driving all human activity into urban centers and turning “open spaces” back to wilderness. Some wilderness must be preserved, of course, but we must keep a balance that does not rob us of the blessings of traditional New England culture.


13. Would you be willing to commit no less than 1 percent of the state’s operating budget to environmental issues, as Mitt Romney did? Yes or no, why or why not?

No. Lets approach individual public policy proposals on their merits, whether or not their costs fall short of or exceed some arbitrary percentage of the budget.

14. As governor, would you continue to have Massachusetts participate in RGGI? Yes or no and why or why not?

Absolutely not. It is a boondoggle.

15. If you become governor, what would your environmental priorities be?

I approach the environment from a Christian rather than a Marxist perspective. I believe that God created this planet and all of its resources for our use and enjoyment, intending us to be good stewards of His property. Humans are not “parasites” on the earth, as the Marxists assume in their policies. We are caretakers in His garden.

My priority is to promote a view of environmentalism that is an extension of a holistic lifestyle respectful of natural systems. I favor natural foods, natural medicines, natural families, natural communities because these are what God designed. I believe good stewardship of the earth flows naturally from people who share this worldview.

16. Have any environmental groups endorsed you, and can you name them?


17. Can you tell us why voters should believe you would be a better governor on environmental issues than your opponent?

See #15.