Keep ethanol mandate; unfair to withdraw contracts
Q: Where are you on the mandatory ethanol standard?
CARSON: Now, as far as the renewable fuel standard is concerned, certain promises were made, certain government contracts were issued which extend all the way into the year 2022, and
I believe that it's probably unfair to withdraw the rug because people have invested money. People have invested a lot of energy into that.
But, you know, we are blessed with tremendous energy in this nation, and we need new sources of energy. What about hydroelectric power? We can develop that, you know?
We have so much natural gas now, and we can liquefy it, and we can transfer it across the sea so we can make Europe dependent on us instead of Putin--put him back in his little box where he belongs.
Change archaic exportation rules to send energy to Europe
We should use our economic power in lots of different ways. I think we can use that in order to keep Putin contained, because he is a one-horse show: energy. And we have an abundance of energy, but we have archaic energy exportation rules. We need to
get rid of those, allow ourselves to really make Europe dependent on us and other parts of the world dependent on us for energy. Put him back in his little box where he belongs. Economic power works just as well as military power, perhaps even better.
Source: 2015 CNN/Salem Republican two-tier debate
, Dec 15, 2015
Best policy is to get rid of all subsidies
I have concluded that the best policy is to get rid of all government subsidies, and get the government out of our lives, and let people rise and fall based on how good they are. It goes back to the concept of regulations.
Every regulation costs in terms of goods and services. Who are the people who are hurt by that? It's the poor people and middle class. Doesn't hurt rich people if their bar of soap goes up ten cents, but it hurts the poor and the middle class.
Smart way in Mideast is to declare energy independence
I didn't suggest that nothing be done [about the Mideast after 9/11]. What I suggested to President Bush is to be Kennedy-esque, in the sense that when the Russians got ahead of us in the space race, what we did is use the bully pulpit
to galvanize everybody, business, industry, academia behind a national goal to put a man on the moon and bring him back safely.
I said, "You can do the same kind of thing. Declare that within five to 10 years we will become petroleum independent."
The moderate Arab states would have been so concerned about that, they would have turned over Osama bin Laden and anybody else you wanted on a silver platter within two weeks.
There are smart ways to do things and there are muscular ways to do things. And sometimes you have to look at both of those to come up with the right solution.
Carson is not convinced that global warming is a threat or a proven trend. In an interview in November, he said, "there's always going to be either cooling or warming going on" and called the climate debate "irrelevant."
The physician said it is a distraction from discussions about generally protecting the environment and about the role of the Environmental Protection Agency in regulation.
Source: PBS News Hour "2016 Candidate Stands" series
, May 3, 2015
EPA must work with business; warming or cooling not relevant
There's always going to be either cooling or warming going on. As far as I'm concerned, that's irrelevant. What is relevant is that we have an obligation and a responsibility to protect our environment.
Our Environmental Protection Agency should be told to work in conjunction with business, industry and universities to find the most eco-friendly ways of developing our energy resources.
Source: Bloomberg.com 2014 coverage of 2016 presidential hopefuls
, Nov 26, 2014
Petroleum independence would deprive terrorists of funding
After the 9/11 crisis, if the president had seized the moment and declared that we would become petroleum independent within the next 10 years, business, industry, academia, and everyone else would have been foursquare behind him, and we would have been
much further ahead in the fight against terrorism than we are today.
The moderate Arab states would have been terrified about losing their economic base and would most probably have turned over Osama bin Laden.
An enormous number of jobs
would likely have been created in the process of switching over to a new energy source, and Wall Street would have been booming.
The environmentalists would have been ecstatic.
Most importantly, the terrorists would have been deprived of
much-needed funding, which would have gradually strangled their efforts.
Oil prices would have fallen dramatically in an attempt to soften our resolve, but good leadership would hopefully have recognized and compensated for such a ploy.
Intelligently tap our own resources offshore & in Alaska
We need to actively combat extremists in every way possible, including economic warfare. The terrorist network derives most of its money through oil revenues, and we, along with most of the rest of the world, have an insatiable appetite for oil.
Unlike the rest of the world, however, we have enormous amounts of oil under North and South Dakota, Montana, and Alaska, as well as offshore oil. I am as much of a conservationist as anyone and love the natural beauty that surrounds us, but the
pragmatic part of me warns that there will be no beauty at all if the world is consumed in nuclear conflagration. As we intelligently tap our own resources, we must doggedly pursue other energy sources. With appropriate incentives,
I have no question that Americans, with all their ingenuity, can come up with new sources of clean energy in a relatively short period of time.